involved in the energy business, we all have our general approaches to energy. jobsly when you are in the a regulatoryrust, agency has an additional degree of independence. the issue is you have a commission. you have five commissioners. you have a debate. you are addressing very specific example, terms of, for there have been discussions about advancing capacity markets. that is not an issue that any particular technology cap way. nominees have to be to approach energy issues and what their plans are

in terms of the agency. >> we will leave it there. thank you so much for being our newsmaker this week. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. reporters. with our whate turn to you about you heard from the energy secretary when it comes to resident obamas climate change agenda. >> we want to have it all. this is an administration that believes they can proceed in toiting carbon dioxide embrace all forms of energy from gasoline.l to i think there are people that would say that is too good to be true. the technology is still developing. there are questions in terms of how we're going to pay for this technology.

to come from,ing especially without a price on carbon that would give money for this kind of investment. what they are wrestling with is how we move forward, how we in a future and oil were carbon is going to be restrained. >> is there money coming from ?he congress >> there is no money whatsoever. when he answered your question about technology, what he existingn is the technology of buying carbon, injecting it underground as a part of extracting oil. that has arty been done. -- has already been done. the way for this program to work is by having carbon capture and sequestration at these coal plants. .hat will cost a lot of money

the secretary cannot address that. he just talked about the technology that is already out there that will not be enough on its own. we saw on friday morning the international scientific community is a we need to get this. he did not talk about how that technology is going to be developed. >> where is congress on this? the secretary talked about, he said the energy department is essential to the president climate agenda. president is going to get anything done, it it is clear he need these agencies to get it all done for him. nothing is happening through congress. congress is not going to do money onto spend more new clean tech research.

we talked about there were $30 billion from the stimulus. that money has been spent. that research has been done. comings nothing else where that came from. it is not clear how they're going to make those breakthroughs. >> you will probably see congress go after these budgets. that is where they're going to it out.nock it has only been a week since the epa talked about a proposal for new power plants. -- you have rumblings already have rumblings to use the acted to block it. the act to block it. you are going to see politics at work here and fight the president. it is going to go right to the money. l pipeline. x

>> ultimately, that decision is made by the state department. be secretary kerry that makes the recommendation and the president's final call. if the final announcement shows the keystone contributes to climate change, the president says no. if it does not make a big contribution, he will probably go ahead and approve it. the studies are still being done. i would not be surprised if he gets pushed into next year. >> thank you very much. we appreciate your time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the book tells a story about a nuclear weapons act in damascus arkansas that occurred in 1980.

way ofhat narrative as a looking at the management of nuclear weapons. invented in 1945. i hope to remind readers that these weapons are out there. they're still capable of being used. there's probably no more important thing that our government does than manage them. these are the most dangerous machines ever built. i think the subject has fallen off the radar quite a bit since the end of the cold war. >> word you do not want to hear together. nuclear weapons and accidental detonation. eric schlosser on command and control tonight at 9:00. >> the republican run house approved a continuing resolution to keep the government operating. it included an amendment to delay president barack obama's

health care law for one year. condition,that congress moves closer to a shutdown of many federal services. house sent legislation to the senate early this morning by a vote of 231-132. .thiss a portion is about one hour and 15 minutes. forward thatmove will keep the doors of the open. it is unfortunate that we are in this situation facing yet another shutdown showdown funding the government what they resolution should not be plan a. plan b. plan c. our challenges are many.

the timeline is short. passing this is absolutely essential. the house passed a version of this bill last friday. the senate amended it. it was sent back to us to consider once again. the motion before us agrees to the senate amendments with two further amendments. one delaying obamacare for a year, and one repealing the medical device tax. included in each amendment are three changes i have requested. the first change is the date the house passed, december 15, to give us more time to passed the fiscal appropriations bills. i have been frack civil on this issue from the very beginning. this longer time frame will help

us avoid the potential need for another cr in the interim. thethe second change would make a technical change for the anomaly on the eisenhower commission. headed by the senate, this change will simply continue the status quo of a hole on that project. finally, the third will add a new anomaly to extend the authority for the united states to issue special immigrant visas for the length of the cr. this authority is necessary to ensure the visas continue for iraq is who assisted the u.s. during the war, many of whom put their lives on the line to do so. it has become clear that since the cr was first introduced, this new prison -- provision has

wide bipartisan support. one of our primary jobs as members of congress is to provide our people with important programs and services only the federal government can provide and to ensure these services are available. this bill does that. however, it is also our responsibility to adjust the nation's fiscal challenges head on with a realistic and pragmatic approach that will allow for attainable solutions. with a debt ceiling looming, a fragile economy in recovery, and the threat of additional sequestration cuts, that will got our national defense, it is essential we come together to

find common ground. one side cannot do it alone. in action or on these crucial issues could lead to disastrous results where our people and our nation for years to come. let me take a moment now to remind us all of just a few of the consequences if the government were to shut down. our troops will not be paid. national security will be put to death at risk. elderly and veterans may not get the assistance they rely upon. our businesses facing great uncertainty will take a hit. our economy will suffer. we must act responsibly to keep our government open and our

country on stable economic footing. now and in the near future, we must also act as productive partners to keep the nation safe, provide our people with essential services, rain in unsustainable entitlement programs, and secure a responsible and realistic federal budget. we must remember we do this not just for ourselves and districts, but we do it for the nation. as a whole. i hope that today, with a countdown to shut down clocks ticking away, that my colleagues will understand that funding the government is one of those essential duties. i ask you to vote yes on the continuing resolution. i reserve. >> the gentlelady from new york is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself

such mock -- such time as i may consume to discuss. >> recognized for as much time as she may consume. >> the bill for the -- the house can -- is considering tonight -- instead of working with democrats to prevent a shutdown, the majority has gotten even more extreme by writing a bill that has no chance of becoming law and will be the 43rd vote on rp ealing or undermining of the affordable care act. while the old saying goes, if at first, you do not succeed, try and try again, i to my colleagues across the aisle tonight, stop trying. you will not succeed. giving our medical choices back to insurance companies and keeping health insurance costs too high for too many families. it continues the republican war on women by allowing a woman's employer to determine what is safe and legal health services that she can access. the bill the senate returned to the house would not increase spending, but one provision would cost $30 billion. the majority is wasting time as

we get closer and closer to a shutdown, because we all know this is bill -- bill will be dead on arrival in the senate. here is an example. small business owners. receiving federal loans to hire and expand their businesses. you. veterans dennis is will be -- benefits will be put on hold. these are the painful results of the republican refusal to act responsibly. they walked out of negotiations with the president last year, ignored the president's deficit reduction plan and his budget, they refused to go to conference on a budget resolution, and they repeatedly voted down democrat amendments to replace sequestration. now, when it is time to fulfill our most asic task of funding

government operations, republicans push us further to the brink of a government shutdown. anyone who votes to amend the senate bill is voting for a shutdown. vote no on the republican shutdown proposal. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield five minutes to the vice chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mrs. blackburn. mrs. blackburn: i rise in support of amendment number one and offer this to the continuing resolution and the bill that is bringing us to the floor tonight and how vital it is that we address the funding needs of this nation and how vital it is that we do it in a manner that is respectful of the american people and of our constituents. one of the things they have repeatedly said is they want to make certain that we delay the

onset of obamacare. and that is what we are going to do. now included in the amendment would be the delay of the 20 new taxes of obamacare. it would delay the individual mandate and the costly surtax for noncompliance. it would delay the employer mandate, the medicaid expansion, the new exchanges and all those subsidies to try to get people to enroll and delay the enforcement powers and delay your personal information and date ave by the navigateors and those seeking to push this program into effect with the exchanges there have been 1,200 waivers given to this program.

people that are friends of the we know it is not ready for prime town. there have been 19 administrative and presidential delays of this program. we also have learned that there are missed deadlines. we see the impact it's having on our hospitals and laying off

people. jobs are being lost. insurance costs are escalating. they have missed 47% of all their deadlines as they have sought to put this into place and the list goes on and on. what we hear from the american people. rate shock that is out there. and with my constituents we also have people that are writing in insurance would take more than what we make, and paying our employers. another it's not ready. we are seeing the impacts of delay after delay that is being this by this administration.

is what we're hearing from our constituents. parents of children. type one diabetes. they need those reimbursement accounts. they are being cut in half. they are not able to keep that. employees areose seeing their out-of-pocket expense going up. that amountshat to? it is a $7,600 pay cut. what we do has come to the floor

to say it is not ready. we are seeing the impact of delay after delay. and what we are saying is it is time as a fairness issue to the american people, delay the whole thing. delay it for a year. continue to work on it. make certain that we listen to the american people and respond to their wish. delay obamacare. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. lowey: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member on appropriations, ms. delauro of what a tangled web

we weave ms. delauro: this amendment is when at first we deceived. an exercise in deception. it is designed to shut the government down. it drastically underfunds the priorities of the american people and tries yet again to delay families' access to affordable health care. we do not have time. the nonpartisan congressional budget office that the cuts will cost 750,000 jobs. the majority wants to make these cuts permanent. regardless of the job loss, damage to our economy, our harm to working families across the country and because of the deep cuts enshrined here, 150,000 lose learning from head start. these children never get the

opportunity back. labor health and education programs are slashed. beyond the deep cuts, the republican majority is trying to use the budget process to take the government hostage unless we delay the affordable care act and because of that, americans with pre-existing conditions finally have coverage. women's health is finally on an equal footing. maternity and pediatric care is covered.

affordable care act is at last affordable health care for more american families. we stand on the verge of a government shutdown and instead of behaving responsibly of working towards a reasonable compromise, the majority puts their radical ideology above the fundamentals of the american people and it is wrong. and i urge my colleagues to vote against it. mr. stutzman: and sue subbing

1/6 of our economy to federal control. the american people disagree. they understand that obamacare broke with history and that is exactly the problem here today. and obamacare is based on limitless government, bureaucratic arrogance and disregard of the will of the people. that is why 3 1/2 years ago, washington broke with history. washington ignored our country's founding principles. back home, the residents of indiana knows what they forgot.

and empowers bureaucrats and issues oppressive mandates. obamacare was unpopular three years ago and unpopular three days ahead of its implementation. ms. schakowsky: i rise in strong opposition to the republican amendments that are designed quite frankly to shut the government down. ms. lee: no secrete that the tea-party republicans came here not as public servants but to destroy our government and they want to destroy and dismantle the affordable care act, which is the law of the land and upheld by the supreme court. this is morally wrong and is lawless, quite frankly, and not

to mention that they want to put insurance companies once again back in charge of the health care decisions that should be made by our constituents. this hostage taking must end. mr. speaker, why in the world would any member of congress want to jeopardize the jobs of our dedicated government workers who provide desperately-needed services to millions of our constituents and who, by the way, have their own families to feed? well, today, the tea party extremists who came here to shut down the government will see their dream come true. these dangerous amendments would hurt children, seniors, families, yes, the most vulnerable and would create havoc and uncertainty in so many lives. but it's their first step to create a country really, quite

frankly, based on a free-for-all, survival of the fittest. that's what happens when there is no government, mr. speaker. we should reject these irresponsible, dangerous and un-american amendments. they will shut down the government and the american people do not deserve this. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. mr. kingston: we are here on continued debate. number one, health care is 1/6 of the economy. i think that before we turn over 1/6 of the economy to the federal government, we need to be very clear on the path that we're going on and right now, the path is anything but clear.

in fact, to quote one of the leading democrat architects, he said it's a train wreck. to me to continue the debate on obamacare is the proper thing to do. 1/6 of the economy, think about that, mr. speaker. secondly, in terms of health care system, it's still the best health care system in the world. 40% of the medical tourists come to america for procedures and operations. can't say that about any other country. number three, obamacare has failed. two of its objectives, the prime objectives was number one to decrease the cost of health care and number two, to increase the access. and let's examine those. do you know anyone's health care premium that has decreased this year.

i have asked that question many, many times and i have invited people to call my office if their premiums have decreased. i haven't heard from an individual or business. i have heard from constituents. my own daughter, a 0-year-old, went from $170 a month to $270 a month. the costs are not going down. obamacare has failed on that. number two and very important, the accessibility has not increased. two fortune 500 companies in my home state have announced the following, one says they will no longer cover 15,000 spouses of their employees under their health care. could i have another minute? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kingston: another fortune 500 company in georgia has announced that 20,000 part-time employees will no longer have company-sponges soared health care.

i talked to one man who has a start-up business and got to 2 employees and he said i quit not only am i concerned about obamacare, but the cost of ork organization, bui n't know how it's going to be implemented and i don't know the rules of it. this debate is well worth having and i would say to our democrat friends whether you voted for it or not, it's not a matter of philosophy but admitting it is a mistake to go on with obamacare. it has not decreased the cost and not increased the access of health care and before we say good-bye to the best health care system in the world and turning it over to the federal government, we need to stop and retool and start all over. it is the right thing to do to fund the government, avoid the shutdown, but not to fund obamacare.

>> b gentlelady from florida is recognized for two minutes. you, mr. speaker, as a member of the house appropriations committee, i rise in opposition of this 43rd attempt to defund or undermined obamacare. this latest attempt goes with the distinct responsibility of costly government shutdown. rather than pass a bill, house republicans are repressing their ideological agenda once more,

pushing us closer to government shutdown. i get it. the republican caucus is desperate to halt the affordable care act because they bet against it come a but now they are gambling with our entire economy. they are desperate because they that would help millions of americans. starting january 1, millions more uninsured americans will be able to afford quality affordable health insurance. just this week, a family of four in my district would be able to obtain private health insurance for as little as $24 a month. i urge my colleagues to stop setting the same losing hand on our economy. enough already. lego. let me tell you something. this little stunt that you are trying to pull here, what it

does to the millions of breast cancer survivors like me, 95 days from today, the millions of survivors, the 150 million people live in this country with a pre-existing condition, you are trying to rob us of the piece of mind that that provision gives us. ist you are trying to do make sure that every single day when each of us who survives cancer or another life- threatening illness, waiting for the other shoe to drop, what you are trying to do is say you should say living in fear from your insurance company to boost you off of your insurance for the possibility of you getting sick again. it is on acceptable. >> i would remind members they should address their remarks to the speaker of the house. isy gentlemen from kentucky recognize.

from kentucky has 16 minutes, and a gentlelady has one tea and three-quarter members -- minutes remaining. >> mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to a very important speaker of the ways and means committee of the house, mr. paulson of minnesota. >> the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we all know that potentialry has huge to continue to be a vehicle for creating jobs. this american success story employees more than 400,000 workers, case salaries 40% higher than the national wage, is one of our country's few industries that actually exports more than it imports. and it is an industry that is fueled by innovation and is made up of mostly small businesses, 80% of these businesses have less than 50 employees. 98% of them have less than 500. most important may, however,

this is an industry that saves and improves lives for patients. medical devices help/the debt rate from heart disease by a stunning 50% and cut the death rate from stroke by 30%. january, a newst $30 billion medical device tax was enacted as part of obamacare. it is not a tax on profit -- it is a tax on revenue, sales. nobody can explain why this industry wasn't without other than tens of billions of dollars needed to be brought in to pay for and over $1 trillion law, but the effects have been devastating. theiries are moving operations overseas, and once these jobs move overseas, they do not just come back. countless small, privately held companies cut jobs and investment in research and development to deal with this onerous policy. research and development is the very lifeblood of this industry. mr. speaker,er,

from 975 organizations in support of appealing -- repealing the device tax. 975. the signatures include numerous doctors, physicians, health care groups that are directly affected by the tax. i would like it to be included in the record. mr. speaker, we know that past is bad policy. we know there is support in this chamber and in the senate to repeal this tax. last year, the house passed the repeal legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support, but the senate did not ask before the end of the year. this year, we have 263 cosponsors as legislation to repel attacks. more than enough to pass it any house fared. last april, when the senate was budget, 79eir senators voted their intention the deviceeal

tax. 33 were democrats. how often do we have such an overwhelming bipartisan majority in a support on such an issue? this is our opportunity. when center chill said that people occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry on as if nothing ever happened. the truth we all know about the medical device tax is it hasn't discourage's, innovation, and heard patient care. -- it has destroyed jobs, innovation, and hurt patient care. since ag this policy very strong and commonsense message to the american people that congress may not always agree on what is the right path forward, but we can absolutely recognize when a policy has set us on the wrong path, and today we have an opportunity to right this wrong. this amendment repealed a tax that is threatening america's global leadership and innovation. .his is about saving lives it is important that we do ask now, today, let's stop the job

losses, let's protect these highways jobs, and let's ensure that america continues to invent, innovate, and continues to develop the very cutting edge and life-saving technology for our patients. of over the repeal of the medical device tax. i yield back. >> mr. speaker, i am very yield to -- pleased to yield two minutes to the ranking member. >> i think the gentlelady peered i have been here for 10 terms, and i've seen a lot, i was here most of the members of my party voted against the prescription drug program offered by the other team. and president bush pushed it through, created a $7 trillion hole in the budget. was not paid for. but after we won the majority, we won the presidency, we did not go back to try to undo it, we actually worked to fix it a little bit.

we embraced it and move forward. there seems to be a problem on the other side. they don't seem to want to come to grips with the fact that the game is over. the players had left the field, and this question about the affordable health care bill is law. that is to say that this consistency would be admirable except it is somewhat of a foolish consistency to come 40 plus times attempting to delay or to repeal the obama care act, as they refer to it, does not make any sense. we are not in negotiations with the present. we are trying to pass a bill that the senate will pass. and the senate has made it clear that they have no intentions of retreating or equivocating one inch on this matter. all we are going to do is spin our wheels.

health care delays is health care denied. in our country after some 90 plus years, multiple presidents, have come to the conclusion that there are americans that need access to health care, that there is going to be away for them to get rid of those exchanges are going to open on october 1, no matter what we do, and the majority needs to speak a little hard truth in the mirror to itself on this matter, the sooner the better. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. >> i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, the vice chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on state and foreign operations. the speaker pro tempore: recognize for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to say very clearly, i certainly oppose shutting down the government. i certainly oppose defaulting on his country's obligations. we have an obligation to govern.

i take that very seriously. billsupport the underlying under consideration here today, specifically because of the repeal of the medical device tax. which in my district is real. is medical device tax costing us jobs and raising costs, which unfortunately appears to be the health care costs,fecta, raising spiking innovation, and destroying jobs. specifically one company in my district with nearly 2000 employees said that there are no raises for their employees because of this tax this year. another small company called me up and said, he makes prismatic lens for many folks, including kids who come back from the wars , and he said we have been in business for 100 years, a little over 50 people. we are probably not going to make it because of this. they need our help. they are crying out for help. i understand we have to keep the government open, but we know that the senate, 79 senators are on record in support of

repealing this tax, republican and democrats, stays from minnesota to massachusetts to new jersey to pennsylvania. this is a very big deal. we need to do it. i also know there is a delay in this bill. i fully expect that 28 is sent over to the senate, the senate will likely pull that out, but they will seriously consider the medical device tax. let's get that done. it is imperative for us to do so. again, so many people's livelihood are dependent on this. we make things in this country. we make medical devices in this country. we had to make sure that we don't do anything to harm them. many of these manufacturers are going to be moving operations overseas. we know this. let's not let it happen. america has an advantage in this area, let's try to maintain it. a 2.3% on the tax is really harming these small start up companies that need access to capital. it is going to be much harder for folks. i can take it to the university of pennsylvania and show you start ups helping us do with concussions who are not going to be able to bring their product

to market. i asked for support of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. regionally from new york. am pleased to, i yield to mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the minority whip is recognize for three minutes. >> i think the gentlelady for yielding. this health care is about 16 of the economy. -- 1/6 of the economy. he is right. this continuing resolution is about 100% of the economy. why are we here, mr. speaker? we passed a budget in his house, senate spending at minors is a $7 billion. the senate passed a budget at

$1.058 trillion, a $91 billion difference between the senate and the house. this house, which talks about negotiations, has refused to go to conference. so we have not reached an agreement on a number. that is why we are here. two thirds ofssed the appropriation bills through this house. in fact, one was brought to the floor and pulled off the floor 96 $7 billion republican budget, you cannot -- 967 billion republican budget, you cannot pass the bill. my friend, mr. rogers, knows that. my friend, mr. rogers, talked about responsibility, we ought to be responsible.

and i believe that on the republican side of the aisle, there are at least 150 members who believe that we ought to be responsible, that believe that this constant hardshipping on the affordable care act, which was the central part of the last election and you want to deny the fact that elections make a difference. and one of the speakers got up and said, this mandate is unconstitutional. so he also wants to deny the fact that the supreme court of the united states has specifically said it is constitutional. but it doesn't comport with your view, and therefore you have rejected it as you have rejected the results of the election. mr. speaker, as the representative of 316 million americans, we have a special obligation to see past the

politics of the moment and embrace the spirit of cooperation for the sake of the public good, not our good, not our politics, not a single one of us is here because we were thought to be the best at doing nothing or saying no. each of us was sent here because our neighbors believe we have something positive to contribute, that we can do what is right for our country. may i have one additional minute? not for our politics, but for our country and for our people. we have a matter of days, but hours left to prevent our government from shutting down. a shutdown is not a tactic, it's not a strategy, it is a failure for this country. let us not be a country whose retttives cannot work together to fulfill the most basic functions of government.

our colleagues across the aisle voted over 40 times to derail obamacare without success. when do you say enough is enough? let us move on responsibly to make government work. at your level. the president said he would sign a bill at your level, not a negotiated level, but at your level. you've won, but you can't take yes for an answer. the senate rejected it, as they will reject this new attempt. instead now is a time to try a different approach. mr. speaker, let this house, not just a small faction of the house -- can i have an additional 30 seconds -- which i tell my republican friends, you ought to reject and say enough is enough. you have had your votes. we lost. let us live up to the responsibility that our founders instilled in this great people's

house and continue to be the democracy that is the envy of the world. let us make sure that when people look at america, they look at america as a country that works, an america that can be united and an america that believes the motto. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would remind members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from kentucky reserves his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the ways and means committee, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

mr. levin: i urge we need to pause to consider the real meaning of what's happening tonight. this is more than about a vote or two. i think this is a fateful occasion. it signifies this. the republican party in the house is being thoroughly radicalized. there are republicans cheering, as the u.s. ship of state goes over the cliff. the house republican colleague of ours as report the -- reported today. i do believe republicans will be blamed. there are some, i think, would relish a showdown.

i think that's unfortunate. it's worse than unfortunate. it's historically reckless and radical. this is an eventful, and i think shameful night for the republican party in the house of representatives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished leader of the steering and policy committee of the house of representatives mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: permission to revise and extend my remark. imagine you lived in a town where the mayor and council were fighting over the budget and the mayor said if i don't get my way, i'm going to stop paying the police department, close the

schools, turn off the street lights and not pick up the trash, that mayor would get recalled by the end of the week. that's what the republican majority is doing tonight. they made it clear they don't like the obamacare. 46 times they made it to repeal it. they are saying to the country, you can either have a country that makes the country run without the affordable care act or you can't have a country without a budget that runs. this is not the way to legislate. we should have the senate bill on the floor and vote on it. this will surely cause a shutdown of the government. it is an outrage and abandonment of responsibility and all members should oppose. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from indiana, brooks. mr. brooks: over 10,000 jobs jobs have been lost o'announced loss. or announced lost in this country. the tax on medical innovation since the beginning of this year has killed these jobs. jobs like 1700, and boat labs, 300 to 400, cook medical in indiana, zimmer, 450. 20,000 people of indiana are employed by the medical device in indiana. many across the country. the average wage is $60,000. this tax can result in a loss of over 45,000 jobs nationwide and it is hurting people with

diseases and these innovations that these companies produce helps save lives. they do help people with their diseases with their debilitating -- things that are happening with their bodies. it's not an exaggeration to say this tax has deadly results. for months, i heard there is bipartisan support. where is it? i yield back. mrs. lowey: i'm pleased -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: i yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. mr. ellison: this bill shuts down the government. the senate passed a clean c.r. we could take it up right now, we could pass it and keep the government open, but if we do something to change the senate

bill and amend it and senate send it back, the time that would be needed to avoid a shutdown would be gone. so no matter what your views are on these amendments, a vote for them is a shutdown, make no mistake about it. and the republican majority knows this. they're well aware and what they're doing is designed to shut down the government. they're shutting it down and the only question before the american people now is will they continue to tolerate this kind of behavior? we are here to govern. we are here to look after the american people. we are here to make sure that the full faith and credit of this government maintains and not just in a financial sense but a mental sense. and when they shut the government down, they do something to shake the confidence. vote no on all these amendments. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to the gentleman from

california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: we are not coming to grips. we understand on this side, we have people who believe the obamacare legislation will be very detrimental to the people of the united states. we have people on this side of the aisle who believe it will be very good for the people of the united states. so, how do we work this out? we try to find a compromise. this bill is not about whether or not obamacare is going to come in or on but whether or not you will accept the compromise which we have reached out to offer to say look there is apprehension in the private sector and the government people tell us they aren't ready to enforce obamacare.

let's postpone it for a year. that's what this vote is all about. will you accept the compromise? if this government shuts down, it's because you haven't accepted the compromise that republicans have reached out to you and offered. we have to understand in this democratic process, it's not like the president says, there will be no negotiations. he doesn't negotiate with foreign dictators. we have reached out with a compromise. please accept the compromise and keep the government open. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. i would remind members to address their remarks through the chair. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: let's say what this is. this is about a shutdown being ordered by the republican party. it is your initiative. and the reason for that is because you have been hijacked

by a small group of extreme folks who simply hate this president. that's all this is about. and the american people reject it, because we had the election and the majority of the american people elected president obama. and you hate that. when you see that, because -- shake your head if you want to, you cannot separate obamacare from the president of the united states. it's one and the same. you are the ones that are offering the shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: i have said, the chair has said on at least three occasions, you address the remarks to the chair. i would advise the gentleman to address remarks to the chair. the gentleman is recognized.

mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. alexander hamilton and thomas jefferson hated each other so much, but that hate they had for each other, did not come before the love of their country. and your hate for this president is coming before this because if you love this country, you would not be closing it down. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. and once again, once again, i would ask members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. chairman. my remarks will change based on the last remarks that were just given. i think it's important that we do not challenge in this chamber

the love that each member has for their country. many of us have made great sacrifices. and represent the people that we were elected to represent. and to question that is to certainly looking at history with a very miopic view because if we blame this on the tea party or extreme group, we would be ignoring history, because this government has been shut down 17 times, mr. speaker, and 13 of those times is when a democrat was in that chair. and i think it's clear that we have to make sure that under tip o'neil that it was shut down more than anybody else, and it's important, mr. speaker, that it's clarified tonight. one other clarification, the motto behind you, mr. speaker, is not what was put forth by the whip from the other side. it says in god we trust. and with that, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. waxman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, my colleagues, obamacare was passed into law. the courts approve it. the electorate voted, and approved the president, who supported it. and now the republicans say they are offering a compromise? deny compromise would people health care because of pre-existing conditions for a year, make sure that people cannot afford health care, cannot get it for a year, but it does worse than that. andakes people on medicare keeps them from getting the break on their prescription drugs, and the doctors from getting the increase in reimbursement for their services.

the expansion of medicaid for very low income people. this is just -- this is not just postponing it. it is undercutting the affordable care act, and the tax provision on medical devices will only widen the deficit. their provisions will cost us money, and if they shutdown the government, it will hurt a lot of people, not just government employees a month but people all across the country. reject this republican proposal and let's approve funding for the government. the speaker pro tempore: become of the tournament has expired. -- theman from ne gentleman from kentucky. mr. weitzman just got up and eloquently spoke about the need insurance reforms in place, particularly about the existing initiative. let me just say i would encourage and -- him to read the bill, and it does that.

what the bill in fact does is it says that those reforms that were in place and the provisions octobercare prior to 1 will remain in place, and the rest of it will in fact be delayed. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield by design. the gentlelady from new york. lowey: i am pleased to yield to the tournament from -- >> as it with us giving up our responsibilities. the idea that we would threaten the full freight the credit of the united states is the issue that is in front of us. we negotiate that medical device tax. it was originally posted 5%, we cut it to 2.3%. in addition to which they savon industry request, we extended

its before in opposition. issues were conveniently left out of this discussion, who is the biggest purchaser of medical devices? medicare. by expanding the affordable care act, we are going to have more customers who are going to purchase medical devices. that is the reality of what we are discussing tonight. the notion that you can separate the revenue portion from the overall legislation is ill considered and everybody knows it. in full negotiated light of day. thoroughly discussed. return to the argument i made a moment ago. if you are interested in not killing jobs, stop this play on the american people tonight, and with the full faith and credit of the united states with the debt obligations that we have. the speaker pro tempore: the german has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. kingston: tillman from the

submenu. i mr. speaker, sometimes wonder if we are discussing the same bill. this is a bill to keep the government open. the president made a guarantee, a simple guarantee, if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. when i got my store and buy a product and a comes up couple the guarantee and does not work, you take it back, you get your money back, and you look for a new product. people are losing their health care plan. now is the time to take some time for what would be bipartisan health-care reform, not a bill that was brand through on a partyline vote so that we could pass it to find out what is in it, and the american people are fretting at what is in it, it is time for a new product, it is time for bipartisan health-care reform, and i ask for the folks across the out to come together and let's do something that empowers the american people, not the elite here in washington, d.c.

the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from new york. yieldwey: i am pleased to two minutes to the gentleman from new york. the speaker pro tempore: recognize for two minutes. >> i think the distinguished ranking member. mr. speaker, for people who are tuning in to this debate, i want to make sure there is no confusion. this is not "saturday night live." this is the republican majority at work, only they are not working, it is a game. it is a game they have played since day one. this has been the congress of chronic chaos since day one. , myitus is another episode colleagues. when i grew up on long island, i used was one of my favorite cartoons, the road runner. cliff.pisode, another they have turned governing into

an old cartoon of the road want -- the road runner. this is not a game. the american people deserve better than this. is not about the affordable care act, mr. speaker, this is not about obamacare, this is about whether we govern, this is about whether they're willing to hold this economy hostage to their ideology. this is about whether they are willing to put people out of work because of their extremism. and they use the affordable care , mitt romneyerfuge said they're going to far, karl rove said they're going to far, the chamber of commerce said they're going to far, the wall street journal said they're going to far, and what are they doing tonight. going farther. doubling down. people have gone from deep disappointment in this dysfunctional majority to absolute outrage with this this functional majority.

mr. speaker, the american people who are watching this and watching this congress want reasonable leaders with reasonable solutions and common sense ideas for this country. showdowns,ns, not not cliffs, not chaos, not cartoons, which we get tonight, and which we have gotten every single night since this majority became the majority. when this government shutdown because of them, mr. speaker, americans are going to have to continue to pay their taxes. thespeaker pro tempore: time of the tournament has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. yield twoon: i minutes to the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee of the v.a.. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from texas is recognize for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it is time to get a few things straight around here. we have in the house of representatives passed the defense department appropriations bill back in june. we passed a military construction v.a. appropriations bill, make sure our veterans are taking care of, back in june. we passed legislation to protect our homeland, department of homeland security, fully funded, everything be president asked for, everything the agencies asked for, passed out of the house early this summer. we passed the energy and water appropriations bill. they are sitting in the senate and could have been passed by the year very easily because the senate has been known to move like lightning when they need to. they've even deemed bills before they pass. democratic process, all of us have learned ever since elementary school that the democratic process requires compromise. two sides to disagree and find a way to come closer together. the president of united states for the first time today since 1979, the president of united states reached out to the

dictator in tehran, sworn to a race israel from the map, the president of the united states will talk to that terrorist in tehran but will not negotiate with the house of representatives. with a majority does elected by our constituents to do everything in our power to delay, define, or stop obamacare. the last time we sent this plan to the senate with a complete and total defunding obamacare. processemocratic requires, we compromise. tonight, we offered a democrat minority a compromise. let's just delay it for a year. let's give the nation a chance to see what is and that 2500 page bill that nancy pelosi had no idea what was at the time she said we have to pass the law to find out what is in it. we are discovering every day new horror stories. the american people deserve to have time to see what this monstrosity will do before it is implemented. -- we are simply

offering a compromise of a year's delay. we are even elite funding the troops. another, mice. that is the way -- another compromise. that is the way it or. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is expired. -- gentleman from kentucky. the gentlelady from new york. >> we are today the way from the government shutdown. even try to deny, but you're going to have to wear the jacket. nbc news says it is going to to shut0 million a day down the government. "asic -- the "chicago tribune says the national park service will have to close all 401 national parks. approximately half the government workforce, 1.2 million employees, is excited to have furloughs. the "washington post "doing bad by doing good -- the "washington

said including disability claims and pension payments will be disrupted if the government shutdown lasts for a walk. abc news talks about approval applications for small business loans and medical research interrupted in the "wall street journal" as a warning,, too. some republicans say they are going to hold seats in the house matter what happened, but even those will not hold if there is a wave of revulsion against the gop. marginal seats are matter for controlling the congress. thespeaker pro tempore: gentlelady's time is expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. kingston: i inquired the timer mating? the speaker pro tempore: the dome and has 3.5 minutes remain,

and the gentlelady from new york has five minutes raining. mr. kingston: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves his time. the gentlelady from new york. to yield: i am pleased one minute to digitally from texas, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: recognize for one minute. lee: texas happened to be a very diverse state. my good from 10 -- my good friend from texas just made an absurd proclamation, coming from a state where there are 6 million plus uninsured individuals, he knows full well that tonight when we vote to shut down the government, he will in fact also eliminate the affordable care act, not delay it. what he will do is he will then tell those who have pre-existing disease that the law is delayed.

he will tell children who need preventative care the law is delayed. further, he will tell our creditors that we are irresponsible as a country and he will tell the american people whose jobs depend upon the government operating that you don't count. i don't want to live in a nation where someone can say to the nation and say to the people that you don't count. i have said before, i am saying it again -- when we vote tonight , we will be voting to shut down the government, you will be voting to ignore those states and the responsibilities of this country and paying its debts and you will then say to those who believe in the fact that the government stays open -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is expired. lee: and we are shutting down the government tonight. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from new york. i am pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore. thespeaker pro tempore: gentlelady is organized for one minute. moore: mr. speaker, be not deceived, the people are not mocked. in 24 hours, if we do not send an exact bill back to the senate, not a colon, not a semicolon, not a paragraph, not a were different, the government will shut down. this is not about medical devices, about birth control, about obamacare, the affordable care act, it is about continuing to have our government operate for another few days. if we don't send -- we have 24 hours for this congress to agree on the exact bill, and i agree with my other colleagues -- this

whole debate is a subterfuge and a proxy for a strong desire to bring this nation to its knees and to punish the people for electing barack obama president of the united states. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is expired. the gentleman from kentucky reserves his time. the gentlelady from new york. i amowey: mr. speaker, pleased to yield one into the gentleman from california, mr. sherman. thespeaker pro tempore: gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. sherman: soon, the government of the world's greatest country will shut down and will reopen enwhen the public decides when one party is unreasonable.

c.r. sets our spending level. this c.r. sets the spending level at the republican ryan budget level. $72 billion before senate democrats. when it comes to spending levels, we have compromised. it is unreasonable to say you are going to shut down the government to acheive a legislative objective. what if democrats said we are going to shut down the government if we don't get immigration reform, gay rights or gun control? we are just as passionate to our colleagues wanting to repeal obamacare. we will not shut down the government. we will not destroy the american economy to get our way. we will not take hostages. we will prevail when we persuade republicans.

we will not hurt this country to get our objectives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina. >> this reminds me of a courtroom scene of "a few good men," you can't handle the truth. our premiums are going up. we have told them about the loss of jobs, we lost full-time jobs. the unions don't like it. we lost innovation. we have enormous tax increases. mr. speaker, the american people , knee don't want to go off the cliff.

mr. speaker, it's time that we recheck this and stop this crazy idea to nationalize health care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has two minutes remaining and the the gentleman from kentucky has two minutes remaining. mrs. lowey: we have been trying to pass a bill that would reflect the needs of the people of the united states of america. my friends know that this bill is just delusiona rmp y and reflects the disfunction of my

friends on the other side of the aisle. to allow the extreme wing of the republican party to control this debate does not make sense at all. the truth is we are two days away from a shutdown. my friends know that this bill is not going to be accepted by the senate. they sent over a bill that we could have all passed, sit down and work together, and keep this government from shutting down the disfunction that is occurring because of the republican wing that the party does not make sense at all. you are bowing to the extremists, the tea party, who really don't want to see this process move forward. we know that the affordable care act is the law of the land. we know it's been afffirmed by the supreme court of the united states.

let's move on and let know -- let's not stop. the national institutes of health are not getting the resources. let's stop the disfunction. this is a reality. let's work together and pass a bill, a continuing resolution and then i'm sure chairman rogers and i could pass an omnibus bill with the senate to move forward with the work we are elected to accomplish. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield myself the balance of the time. we have heard time and again that this debate and vote is about shutting down the government. well, pardon me, i thought we

were voting on a continuing resolution. what do you think a continuing resolution is? it's to continue the government. now those on the other side also want to say that we are defunding obamacare. we're not. we did that in the first bill we sent over to the senate. the senate rejected that and sent it back. now, this side of the aisle is offering a peaceable offer. people all over this country are telling us how much they are worried about this obamacare that they are having to contend with starting this monday. they are seeing please give us a break and give us time to adjust to this. even the president admitted that the law was not the prime time for the business community.

and he gave them an extra year, businesses. he has exrused so many other people that we don't know about. and yet the individual mandate, the requirement of the law that individuals must comply with. that's what this bill does. it says let's take a year off and let's work this thing and get the computers working, which they aren't working now. let's get the computers working and staff out in the field and sign people up. that takes time and that's what this bill is all about. it says delay for just one year the individual mandate, which is really that's all that is left. let's take a year and perfect, if you can, this bill, for the individual.

but to say that what we're after tonight is to shut down the government is just not so. this is a continuing resolution. this continues the government. like it or not, but that's what it does. so i urge a yes vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. >> those were some of the speeches yesterday from before the house voted, sending the mmm back to the senate, and a look here at one of the last major shutdowns. this is from the "new york early today, late 1995, 1996, the two key players back then, resident get -- resident clinton and speaker of the house newt gingrich. previous congresses and administrations have managed to find their way out of a stalemate after the government shutdown in 1995 and 1996. the white house and congress can do some significant bipartisan compromises. some changes to the tax the budget policies that will come

rational republicans -- congressional republicans and president clinton were happy to call their own. as the current funding bill awaits action by the senate tomorrow, take a look at some of the tweets coming out of capitol hill. kentucky senator rand paul said -- republicans are willing to amend and compromise on obamacare, but barack obama would rather shut down the government and work with us. cornyn saysr john -- instead of taking a day off, region call centers back to washington and pass the commonsense. and the democratic florida congressman alan grayson said -- four years ago today, i said the republican health care land was "die quickly go sadly, it still is. and the gop whip, and kevin mccarthy, and virginia senator tim kane were on fox news this morning. they talked about what to expect after the senate reject the bill. >> i think they will send

another provision not to shut the government down but to find it, and we will have a few options to look at. at what hask transpired since obamacare is moved forward, we have created more than 840,000 jobs in this country, more than 90% of them have been part-time because of obamacare. that creates a part-time economy, part-time opportunities, and in the end, it creates a part-time america. that is why you will find that we will find that the government and still ask for delay and the movement of obamacare. we are not shutting the government down. >> the president was out golfing, the senators went home, we were here working until 1:00 a.m. to make sure he did not shut the government down. the difference here is, you listen to the president, talk to the president of iran, talk to putin, but will not sit here and talk to the representatives of the american people. that when the president went out to the american people and said if you have your health care and you

can keep it. a widow in new jersey is happens to be the mother of one of my staffers and said they can no longer keep their health care, she cannot renew it next year. you we cannot nor this problem. this is an opportunity when you find that obamacare is not going to work -- delay it. >> i agree with have this debate, but we should not connected to a government shutdown. that is a fundamental disagreement between the two sides here. >> i want you to answer my question because the fact that this goes into a fact -- into effect whether there is a shutdown or not. >> we have to read the delay provision. the delay provision says everything that goes into effect beginning october 1 gets delayed for a year. does that delay the exchanges? >> but you are not going to pass appeared >> you are right, but it would definitely delay the ability for people to be turned away because of pre-existing conditions. you are right, we are not going to pass it because it is wrong to do a shutdown of government

to make a change. the house was in until about 12:30 last night. they sent some amendments and a new bill that the senate. they were delaying the health care law for a year and get rid of a tax on medical devices that was supposed to help pay for the else care law. and also making sure the military gets paid in case of a shutdown. senate's desk the now. the senate will be in at 2:00 tomorrow. thisashington journal" morning, we heard more about what will happen in the days ahead. host: joining us for our sunday roundtable, jill lawrence and peter baker of the "new york times." lessig in with you, peter, and the story posted yesterday, the president referring to what housebroken are doing as blackmail over the health care law. what is happening from the white house perspective yo?

guest: they are saying the other side is being unreasonable, the other side of a group of anarchists, they strapped a bomb as dan pfeiffer, the white house senior adviser put it. our preparingt the country to the notion that there will be a government shutdown, and point the finger, the blame to the other side to make sure that they don't receive any of the political blowback themselves. host: we know what happened last night, this morning, house republicans with a handful of democrats deciding to basically delay the affordable care act, get rid of the medical device tax, and also keep the government in operation through mid-december. this is a statement from harry reid before the house passed its first vote "to be absolutely clear, the senate will reject both the one-year delay of the affordable care act and the repeal of the medical device tax. after weeks of feudal political games from a public and, we are still at square one.

republicans must decide whether cr ors the senate clean four save republican government shutdown. senate democrats have shown they are willing to debate and vote on a wide range of issues, including efforts to improve the affordable care act. to debate emissions in a calm and rational at mr., but the american people will not be extorted by tea party anarchists." walk us through tomorrow. what can we expect? guest: we can expect either a lot or nothing going on behind the scenes. the only point of compromise will be this medical device tax. this puts democrats in an awkward position because both the house and the senate have actually passed a repeal of this, which is a $29 billion, 10-year measure to help pay for the affordable care act. there is enough support in both chambers for this. the question is -- is the president and will harry reid

actually negotiate? their strong point is we are het: a lot of attention that is able to pick up the phone and talk to the president of iran, the republicans say he is not meeting with senate and house leaders. seem surprising that we could have conversations of iran and not john boehner. you cannot compare the two. this is from this morning. what ted cruz did last week and what we could see in the coming days could hurt the party's chances in 2014 for the republicans. what the senator is

talking about the will of the people, what if you look at the polls, there is a lot of unhappiness with obamacare, but -- they do not want it repealed, they want to be improved. they want to try it out. is as good as a repeal. it is going to create chaos. host: the president is scheduled to leave for asia leader this week. guest: they have not canceled it. you have to assume that it is on the table. he has canceled trips before to asia in the midst of these kinds

of fights. if i were on the host committee [inaudible] your colleague with a comparison to what we sell 17 17 years ago.aw the political environment is very different today. there are contextual differences. it is a different economic situation. there were debating at the time of budget that was out of balance, but the economy was coming back. they were flusher with funds than we are now. the kind of cutting we are would be much more 1990s., deeper than the the political atmosphere is much more complicated, much more geared against any kind of

compromise. host: you wrote a piece indicating that it is very different for this current crop of republican leaders than what newt gingrich faced 17 years ago. the animosity and ness, one ofctive mes the fascinating things was looking back at a speech that newt gingrich made in 1998. -- this is not a w --who would say that now? host: this is a cover of a book that we will be focusing on tomorrow. american constitutional system collided with the new

politics of extremism. peter baker, is it worse than it looks? guest: it is a very divided time. we have talked about this a lot. i wonder whether we forget that it has often been pluralized -- polarized in history. of warm anda period fuzzy politics. the newt gingrich era was a difficult era. the system was built for confrontation and this happens to be one of the more confrontational times. host: congress decided to put by october theet first. it has not happened since 1987. is this the new norm? guest: i certainly hope not.

we were so focused on how dysfunctional the senate was. what was up with the senate? it looks pretty bad. i do not know if it is worse than it looks. maybe the public will kick into gear and we will see some movement. host: the center of this is the affordable care act. your piece, why delaying the obama care legislation by year could do as much damage as defunding the issue. the republican plan does not sound as dramatic as taking away its funding, but it could do as much to quash the controversial law. for three years, groups have all been per pairing for tuesday -- repairing for tuesday. they have adapted their products

, people have made their plans about whether to quit their jobs or start a business or shop through an exchange. if it was repealed, what would happen to the insurance theynies who suddenly -- have been told they cannot underwrite anymore. they will lose a lot of money. people will have nowhere to go. it would be very chaotic. public opinion would not improve. end, they could take it into the 2014 elections and claim the mandate to kill it. a leader who lacks followers. succession, john boehner is the third ranking official in the country. he has all but disappeared as a leader. beenollapse as speaker has

sad to watch, unable to control his own caucus, negotiate with the president. he flounders in office. he is the prisoner of the extreme right of his party. -- it hashas been of been a very tough time for john boehner. the white house, there is a certain degree of sympathy because they see him being held hostage to his own caucus and

unable to corral them. it is unclear to me what he could do differently. -- he islear definitely not commanding. ted cruz has been such an influence on some of the republicans in the house. that is one more sign of john boehner becoming the moderator of the house. tax reform, immigration reform, are these dead issues? guest: not dead, but not exactly

roaring. immigration looks like it will not happen this year, if it happens at all. the white house says they have not given up on it, but they are not doing much in that direction. they do not think any hopes of convincing the speaker should bring it to the floor. people say, why doesn't he bring things to the floor? you can understand my that is a perilous idea. when you are a leader of a party caucus, you have to be able to governor -- govern within your caucus. he has not been able to do that. debate lastoor night is available on our website. this is an exchange which when congressman rogers as he questions jim mcgovern about the president's threat to veto what

the house passed early this morning. >> the president has threatened to veto the bill? will said he absolutely veto. >> i think he is very serious about this. about him, it is about a lot of people entitled to health care in this country. they are now in jeopardy. your colleague saying the decision-making process is emblematic of some of the problems this president has faced.

orst: the red line comment, exactly. john boehner's problems corralling his caucus on the spending fight has helped president obama by of scaring the fact that he is that the problem in his own caucus with syria. two weeks ago, we were talking about his fellow immigrants had abandoned him on his proposal and his intention to launch a military strike on syria. democrats were challenging him choice nowmmers, his abandoned for the federal reserve. this fight has brought democrats back home to him. he is standing firm on the health care fight, in part, as a matter of politics. --gives them a way to

host: we are joined by peter baker. the president speaking to reporters from the briefing room at the white house and using his weekly address to tell the american people what will happen if congress fails to reach an agreement. >> if congress does not pass a budget, the government shuts down. friday, congress passed a bill to keep the government open. areblicans in the house more concerned with appeasing an extreme faction in their party. in the next couple of days, these republicans will have to decide whether to join the senate and keep the government open or create a crisis that will hurt people for the sole

purpose of advancing their ideological agenda. at a moment when our economy has steadily gained traction in our deficits have been falling faster than any time in 60 years, a shutdown would be a pass a budget -- and move on. host: the president talking about reduction of the deficit. that is a direct result of sequestration and we did hear from congressional budget officer don elmendorf. he called it unsustainable. guest: in fact we have really not solved the long-term issue. it comes down to medicare, and entitlements, how we are going to continue to pay for health care for an aging population and make it economically manageable.

sequestration has done a good job in a sense of having reigned in some of the spending on the discretionary side that could be painful or harmful as a lot of people would argue. that is not where the biggest long-term issue really is, and they fail to tackled that. guest: entitlements really are the key to this whole thing. you can see the outlines of a grand bargain, the president has said he is interested in some kind of entitlement reform and managing the cost. the republicans are interested in that. they're interested in tax reform.

if that were put on the table not in a crisis atmosphere. host: congressman tom gray, the republican from georgia, leading the charge in a piece from the post. and up post from congressman jim mcgovern saying that newt gingrich seemed more reasonable regarding the government closing. carroll joins us from st. louis, democrats line, good morning. caller: i think if we go another year trying to repeal this health-care law, oh, my gosh, what would it be, 80 votes, trying to reach a deal? i wish you could play that lip of if the democrats had been the ones trying to get gun control and hold back the budget as hostage, and i wanted to say i think the results in syria because of our president turned out better. we are not in a war with them right now.

thank you. host: thank you for the call. do you want to respond? guest: i think the way the president arrived at the place was not pretty. also there is no guarantee that it will not end up with a military strike anyway, but for the time being, he does have a chance right now to stand firm in a way that he hasn't on many other issues. the question is whether he and the senate will be able to do that in the face of a government shutdown, and the pressure will be coming from all sides to end it. host: your colleagues write, what will happen coming ahead?

first of all, the house action all but ensures that a large part of the government will be shut down on tuesday morning. more than 800 thousand federal workers deemed nonessential facing furloughs, millions more could be working without paychecks. a separate house republican bill would ensure that military personnel continue to be paid in the event of a government shutdown, and the knowledge meant that a shutdown was likely. guest: it is a matter politics to say we are not going to pay eurocrats and another thing to say we are not paying our men and women. this is the third time we have seen this fight. we did see it in the clinton presidency. with the exception of an in form c-span audience, we are not as seized by the possibility that

is might happen, because of a chicken little sort of, don't worry about it. it is interesting that on tuesday, if it actually happens, whether the country will respond in a more engaged way. host: since c-span thinks the red line is so funny, what happens to big talker kentucky hal rogers district when it is shutdown? joining us from california, the republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, i actually just moved to south las vegas. my point goes to senator reid, but my first point is, and i'm sick of bringing it up, like that other gentlemen, why are they doing this, why are they shutting us down?

why are they incompetent in their own jobs? it is like when you are in school, the kid with the most cars, they succeed in the best graces of the teacher. where are the stars, where are the senators, where are the congressman with the stars? if you cannot get your stars, you cannot hold your job, you are not confident. i'm sure we have a lot of talented americans who could. my third point is senator reid. we have the highest unemployment. the real estate market has really gone down the tubes. how can he stand and talk about being a leader when our state is going through such dire straits? maybe this time we did get up and take the terrible talent out. guest: i wasn't sure, i think he

is saying that he wants congress to repeal obamacare and he would like republicans who are not on board with that, mostly in the senate i guess, to be replaced. this is kind of what john mccain was saying the other day. that may be the way to go for republicans. they are minority in the government. they only control the house, and they are kind of on a quixotic quest at this point. host: democrats and republicans are not negotiating in a way to avoid it. they are not even speaking to each other. guest: we have seen this movie before. it is like a third "jaws" movie, nobody cares if the shark is

about to eat somebody. the president will stand firm for obama care. he wants to send a signal that he is not going to negotiate on this at all. it is to the republicans vanish, or so they believe, to be pushing away at it and to stand firm on behalf of people who don't like it. it's not actually about cutting a deal. it's about sending a signal to constituents on both sides, they are standing on principle. host: all eyes continue on the red ink as we approach is $17 trillion national debt. this is what it looks like. paula is joining us from athens, tennessee, independent line.

good morning. caller: good morning. according to harry reid and the president, all we have in the houses representatives, so it doesn't matter what the house passes. obama says [indiscernible] yet the debt has gone up from $11 trillion to $17 trillion. tell me, what is the premium? what is the coverage? what is the deductible? it is a great idea, if you don't lay that out, you don't get the

insurance. the biggest culprit of the whole bunch is unfortunately in the press. host: on the threshold of obama care, warily. one of the stories out today on what to expect on tuesday. we should point out that tuesday is the start of signing up for the exchanges, which don't kick in until january 1, correct? guest: some of the concerns the caller mentioned are ones that democrats share as well as republicans. businesses that don't have to pay to provide insurance to employees over 30 hours writing back, and the white house says there's not enough evidence to suggest that is happening on a large scale, but there are

certainly anecdotes of businesses doing that. we have seen implementation problems, and the president says these are glitches that can be fixed. they had to postpone for year, the aspect of businesses that have now postponed the small business sign up for these things. what it adds up to in the long- term is up for debate. host: you were with the president and the headline came out afterwards, another delay. guest: it is a very complicated thing we are doing here. a lot of people are involved in it. health care is one of those complicated things. we try to make it is easy and user-friendly as possible. for it to be like amazon and you go on the computer and everything will be hunted dorie, it will take a while to iron out some of the wrinkles and have it be as user-friendly as we wanted to be. host: the white house predicting a slow enrollment in obamacare,

saying it will not be as large as some expected. peter lee joking that he expected exactly two people to sign up on tuesday, october 1, in the state of california. california has more uninsured residents of any state in the country. guest: that is probably something he wishes he hadn't said. if you look at massachusetts, the only place to have a mandate and an online marketplace, towards the very end of the sign up period there was a rush on enrollment. i don't think there will be any judgment on this until the end of march. the message from the president right now is something they have not been never to say until now, which is, don't take it from any of us, just go online and see

for yourself. see what works for you and your family and make a judgment for yourself. host: on our twitter page, if we have 800,000 nonessential government employees, our government is way too big. people are fed up with all parties and want to fire everyone and start all over. these are the democrats, republicans, tea parties, and the works. it has become a circus, and we are ashamed that we voted to put the present people in office. guest: i guess what strikes me is how many people who put these people in office -- the business community is now trying to negotiate. i think some democrats are having some misgivings about the president, he doesn't seem to have a strategy for dealing with any of this. host: from virginia on the

democrats line, good morning. caller: i just want to saddam a federal retiree. if they are going to hold my federal pension back, we need to stop paying congress. i'm not going to get paid, but congress is going to get paid? that's not fair. i voted for president obama. he has done a great job. give a obamacare a chance. tell these republicans to get the hell out and go back where they came from, and we need to go on. i'm sorry, if the federal government is going to hold my pension back, let's not pay congress. congress is going to get paid on the first of october. why should i not get paid? thank you. host: we will go on the republican line, from new york. good morning. caller: i got so nervous waiting

that i hope i make sense. i am for a hospital or medical plan for everybody. i have members of my family, i worked at a bank for years, and i know how hard people work for little or nothing. they cannot afford medical insurance. and why are they so against it? i am against the drug program that they put down and made us take, the republicans. i think it would be a blessing if people could have insurance and have peace of mind about something. i don't know what to say. i have been a registered republican, i am 80 five years old and i have been a registered republican all my life. host: and you support the president health-care law?

caller: i certainly do. i see the people around me, sure they can go to the emergency room for just regular care, but they cannot get operations are anything. i don't understand it. i have a friend, she went to the doctor. he said it was her heart, so they sent her to burlington, which is a very good place. and they said she had to have a new heart. they said you would have the best chance in boston, so they called boston. she didn't have any insurance, so boston said if she has no insurance, we don't want it. so they sent her to albany, and albany did take her. but she passed away because she waited so long. but that's terrible. if it was one of these millionaires, they would have got it right off. guest: that is the thing, for all the politics here in washington and the games playing in the competition, these fundraising pitches last night as the vote on the house more,

contribute money. it is often forgotten in washington the real stories out there, and there are complicated issues. republicans and democrats i think seriously want to find a way, and interestingly enough, the polls this week show only 39% support president obama cause health care program. some think it does not go far enough. there are lots of shades of gray here that get lost sometimes. host: i want to go to your story from friday, following the phone conversation with the president of iran. along the more fractured relationship took a significant

turn friday when the president and president rouhani became the first leaders of the countries to speak since the tehran hostage crisis more than three decades ago. my question is, how that plays into all of this. russia's role, president putin's role as the president tries to reach out to an ally. guest: a few weeks ago, we were trying to figure out how best to proceed on syria, he had a congress that was going to vote against any ill a terror strike and did not have a way out, and president putin offered a lifeline, proposing this diplomatic deal. it may be a moment of some interesting possibilities. syria giving up its chemical weapons, if it were actually going to do it, would be a big deal. a genuine rapprochement with iran in which it gave up its capacity to develop nuclear weapons would be a big deal. settling an issue that has been

out there for three presidents. but we have seen this movie before. the cliché, the devil is in the details. there are a lot of different ways this thing could be messed up before it gets to fruition and it a lot more than we have seen so far to bring it to a meaningful conclusion. host: there was a lot of attention that there would be a handshake and at least they stop by or drop by. that did not happen, and there was no photograph. what is the back story? guest: that underscores why this is so difficult. president rouhani obviously made

the calculation it was too inflammatory back home to have a picture of him shaking hands with the leader of the great satan, as it america is often called there. there wasn't a photograph that would inflame people back at home. a photograph of the president on the phone is not the same as a photograph of the president with rouhani together. if rouhani was so worried that a photograph of a handshake would do great damage, explain some of the complicated dynamics he is facing back home, not to mention what president obama is facing here if the two sides come together. to allow him to give up centrifuges and some of the uranium they have accumulated so far, to have a more open relation with the president. host: this is from karen who lives in massachusetts. the shutdown is another attention grabbing ploy. the big question about the unaffordable insurance scam act is why no one brought out the great experiment of romney's

state of massachusetts, because it did not work here. the insurance company paid off romney, i hope this shields in the house cut a good deal. guest: there have been opinion polls that show that is very popular in massachusetts, and also that they have the highest rate of coverage in the united states. i think it is 96% or 98%, virtually everyone covered. and they did it without cost controls, and they are now putting in cost control. that is an ongoing experiment, they are a couple of steps ahead of the rest of the country. host: from michigan on the independent line, good morning. caller: this whole thing is just absolutely absurd. i think that smarter people are starting to recognize this is nothing more than a game of deceit. it is really unfortunate that

the republican party, in my opinion, and i am being an independent. i voted for both parties in past elections. but currently, the republican party's acting more like the syrian government, where they would rather destroy the country then listen to the people. they keep complaining that the majority of the individuals in the country believe in their way, but we had a chance in 2012 to make that decision be made. it was proof that the majority of the country wanted to vote the way of obamacare, and that is ok with me. i am an individual who is 51 you're so, just finished law school, had a business of my own for 20 years, and it was one of the hardest things of my life not to be able to afford health

care for my family. i have two college-age kids that require medicines as well. people don't know the challenges that confront a lot of middle income families in this country. it's not just poor individuals. it's not just the rich. you have a small group of extremists who would destroy this country rather than listen to the voices of this country. the voices were heard, the 2012 election told us what people wanted. 39%, as the gentleman just said from the new york times, there are a lot of individuals who feel that obamacare doesn't go far enough. over 40% of the individuals who were polled said they liked the affordable care act. the koch brothers and others have invested so much in trying to distort this reform and destroy the country because they want tax breaks, they don't want to pay their fair share. i am in a community where someone went overseas to get a

heart transplant because they couldn't afford it. my father or my mother or my family are not viable enough to us that we should have access to that type of care as well? i don't think money should dictate that. host: thanks for the call. let me turn the comment into a question. this has become known as the touch the stove moment, after nearly three decades of narrowly avoiding government shutdown, house republicans appear poised to finally grasp the hot stove and allow the government operations to begin shutting down early tuesday morning. if this happens, who is to blame? guest: well, obviously, each party will blame the other. in the past, 1995, republicans took the brunt of it. there is polling that suggests president obama is not going to

fare so well in this, either. i think it is particular true people who realize there is so much support for repealing the medical device packed, people like that he seems willing to negotiate. they seem to be giving him better marks for reaching out. i think there is a danger for both sides. one of the former speakers i spoke to, denny hastert, he predicted that as things move on toward the 2014 elections, this dynamic will change. the tea party republicans in the house will realize they have not accomplished anything, and they are in danger of losing the majority. host: representative ron bishop says it is a legitimate question, i have no idea where he is. the chair of the house agriculture committee saying i don't know that i can really answer that question. he has not sided with senator ted cruz and has not been seen standing with the republican house leadership on this issue.

guest: we came out of the 2012 election thinking that paul ryan was perhaps the voice of the republican party. i think people thought he had a future for 2015 as a possible presidential candidate, yet he has allowed himself to be eclipsed at least in terms of public attention by ted cruz, rand paul, and some others. is he lying low and planning to come out at some point and take on a leadership role? we don't know. host: from the new york times, who goes to work, who stays home? the breakdown from nasa to the epa, interior department, treasury. guest: we should call it a partial shutdown for that reason.

it will be useful to have graphics like that to explain which parts are deemed essential. 800,000 are considered essential. if that is too many, that is a fair point. >> including the national park service, which is often the most visible sign of a shutdown. guest: that is right. clinical trials at the national institutes of health, that might not affect a lot of people, but for some it is life or death. caller: good morning, am i on? i would like to ask the two people that you have their, if obama care is so good, why did he let the democrats off of it,

and what about the core poor people am of the people you hear on the news, i'll these millions of people that don't have jobs and are not looking, is the government going to pay for their health care all along the way? so they go to the hospital and they have a heart problem and they have to go home and they won't be able to pay the hospital bill, so is obama care going to pay for all of that? host: once you start providing exemptions, as the caller indicated, does that not feed into this anger and frustration that congress has had for the president, implementing a law that they say the country isn't ready for? guest: the big exemption is for large companies over 50. that is a small part of the law, because most of those companies already provide health insurance.

and there is an argument now over whether congress -- congressional staffers. actually they are being treated worse than the rest of the country because they are being made to give up their federal insurance. they already have employee-based insurance. there is going to be a lot of gaps and unfairness is, that the only way to find out what is working and what is not is to wait for it to go into effect. there are some theories that republicans are so adamant about trying to reveal this, they are afraid people might like it in the end. host: paul ryan in the tea party cronies are disputing the 2012 presidential election. they lost, sore losers. sort losers are hurting everyone in their wake. the chairman of the house committee that oversees operations, how dare you presume a failure? the headline is, congressman issa getting testy with the press.

guest: i wasn't there, they are presuming failure because in fact, we have this rock and a hard place side on this. it is important to remember, several callers say the 2012 election settled this. that is the argument president obama has made and some republicans have said, to understand the politics of all this, the republican house won the election in 2012 and a lot of them believe because their constituents wanted them to do the things they are doing now. it did not provide the clarity by making it all republican or all democrat that it could have. host: the last time the

republicans pushed a government shutdown, some saw political disaster. others saw policy route. there is a photograph of speaker of the house john boehner. we talked about him earlier. guest: he has a lot of choices to make, i think. there's so much that was good for his party about them aggression reform, and yet in some districts, some members of the caucus are just absolutely dead set against it. i think probably also on budgetary matters and fiscal compromises, in the past he has been a believer in the art of the possible. that seems to be an alien concept these days. he will have to decide which way to go. there are some rumors that he

may retire, which would make his choice pretty clear, he could do whatever he wanted without repercussions. guest: i think that is right, he faces a tough moment. if you are a lawmaker who has been here as long as he has, i think he would prefer to be able to cut deals. and advance conservative ideas, even as he had to accept some he didn't like, but that is not the atmosphere right now. host: from round rock texas, good morning, on the republican line with peter baker and jill lawrence. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think it is utterly despicable that the president of the united states would negotiate without a pretense with a sponsor of terror like the president of iran. that is unfathomable to me.

yet he won't negotiate with our own republican party. host: we will get a response with peter baker. guest: the timing of these things is really interesting in that regard. he is in fact negotiating with syria and iran. he made a point when he ran in 2008 and saying look, i believe in negotiating and talking to our enemies as well as our friends. the same day he is saying i will not negotiate. the timing of these two things at the same time i think raises the question that the caller raises. host: i noticed in the past our you referred to the weekly standard article by stephen hayes two or three times. i notice you read the very first paragraph, which makes it sound like the weekly standard is acknowledging there is a republican civil war, but i'm asking you now to please read the second paragraph am aware he says we are inclined to a

somewhat different view. i think in the interest of balance, i would like to hear that second paragraph, but i do appreciate your time and your guests and your program today. thank you. host: i will turn around and try to find it. guest: the republicans obviously are in an interesting moment here, because there is a disagreement. i have not read the article, but there is obviously disagreement. you saw senator john mccain get up from the floor and chastise ted cruz. there are democrats who are also divided. they are happy to have a common enemy in senator cruz. the more revolutionary republicans are looking at this in different ways right now. host: when one party rules, we

end up with massive overreach. guest: where you stand depends on where you sit, in this case. obamacare did in fact pass with only democratic votes. it was part of his platform. it was part of hillary clinton's platform. they campaigned on it and said they were going to do it. people have been trying so many different things for so long, but it is true that when you don't have divided government, when you have unified government, that is a mandate for an agenda. host: we share this with you earlier, the first paragraph. he begins by saying ted cruz has sparked a republican civil war. he has done the bidding of the

gop fringe, and a self- aggrandizing crusade. the practical effect of his campaign to defund obamacare has been to elevate the president and jeopardize the 2014 elections for his own party. that at least seems to be the consensus in washington. we're inclined to a somewhat different view. we say two cheers for ted cruz, and for mike lee, rand paul, marco rubio, and their fellow procedures. everyone is talking about obamacare. the more he gets talked about, the clearer its flaws are to an already skeptical public. they will emerge from the debate this fall in a stronger position politically, and perhaps even with some agreement on policy changes that would further weaken the president pause collapsing health-care regime.

guest: there you go, exactly. i thank the caller for asking for a little bit more. it is a complicated story right now. how it is going to play out is not clear. ted cruz is a champion and a hero to a significant part of the republican party these days, because for many years, many felt their party was not standing up and giving the full started advocacy point of view that they had. they were frustrated with the go along and get along. they are now receiving a more assertive leadership. guest: the whole debate over obama care, the only way to is going to be settled is when it goes into effect.

the most significant parts of it haven't gone into effect yet, so we will see as it happens. i think it is inevitable that it is going to happen. obviously there will be problems. the question for republicans will be, are they going to try to fix them, or are they going to try to repeal the law? that will be the true test of the tea party influence, and the moderates versus the full throated advocates. that will have a bearing on the future politically. host: the prospect of a unified republican message was gone until conservatives launched their outside-in campaign using grassroots activists groups and a growing conservative angst about the president's health- care law to force at the top the agenda. host: former senator jim demint thought perhaps he would have more of an influence by outside education in effect. we have seen this historically over time, on the left as well.

they agitated and pushed from the outside. you see president obama, even now, suffering criticism from those who feel like he hasn't done enough for their side of the calls. host: from maryland, independent line, good morning. caller: first of all, i would like to say it is a shame that journalism today is relatively dead. i don't see any of the watchdog media that we should have. i think the media should be educating us, specifically your viewers and the rest of the country as to what is really in this till. for instance, the taxes that are now on the irs website, the products that are going to be taxed under miracle devices. harry reid got up in front of the microphone and he stated that obama care has been the law for four years. let me regress here. they should educate the viewers,

your panelist should educate the viewers on what the polls were when this law was passed, as far as who is in favor of this in the country and who wasn't. and also, how the polls test. what the republican should do is enact this law in full, no exceptions, no exclusions, no delays. like harry reid said, this law has been law for four years. so they should have their stuff together and they should enact the law, because the delays are basically to get past the next election, and i think that if

people in this country see what a wretch this is. the comment was made by jill that we need to enacted to see what unfairness there is in it. like nancy pelosi saying -- that is absurd. as the people in congress right now, what they know about the bill, they learned after they signed it. host: last night a few house members had an interesting suggestion on how to handle this. the senate should bring it up and add both and immigration amendment that would include a path to citizenship to those 12 million undocumented aliens and

a tough gun control amendment, then send it back to the house for approval. like the caller just said a moment ago. guest: we would have a divided nation if we did that. regardless of what the callers have said, i think it remains true that this is such a complicated, ambitious thing that the democrats are trying to do, every big program of the passed has gone through the process of trying it, fixing it, and usually, though in this case we don't know, that is what is going to happen, i think. people are going to love it, hated, tolerated, we will just see what happens. host: peter baker, you get the last word. guest: medicare part b, put in place by president bush, it was very controversial at the time and expensive and had its issues when it was put into place.

today, many people are happy it is there someone need to be there, and there doesn't seem to be any effort to repeal it. this has touched off a real feeling in the country, and the question is whether that will remain so. host: peter baker and jill lawrence, thank you both very much. >> how thenk you. american constitutional system collided with the politics of extremism. wrapped up in the budget debate, the health insurance exchanges, and they are scheduled to open on tuesday. the senior correspondent will talk about their unveiling. the treasury department estimates the u.s. will hit the debt ceiling on october 17. we will talk about what the debt

ceiling is, how it is determined, and the possibility of going past the deadline. washington journal airs live every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. you can always weigh in before that via twitter. douglas -- lead c-span know what you are thinking about the possible government shutdown on facebook where you can debate other viewers and take our poll. 4500 of you have already weighed in.

the 1700 viewer comments we have gotten on the subject of the shutdown and what might be a had. check it out for yourself. but the director of the congressional budget office. he testified before the budget committee about the long-term budget for the united states. the fiscal year ends tomorrow night at midnight as congress continues to debate an extension. this part of the hearing ran about one hour and a half.

>> the hearing will come to order. i know we still have our caucuses going on. i understand some of our members will get here a little later. everybody.hank it has been a little while since we have gotten together as a committee. we have a new report worthy of our attention. it is good to see our cbo director once again. kind of work it takes and we appreciate that. as i read this, your report makes one thing clear. problemnot solved the yet. we are spending too much money. look at the numbers. our total debt is bigger than

our economy. is higherly held debt that at any point in the u.s. history except for a brief period around world war ii. around one or two. some seem to think that just because the deficit is not $1 trillion, problem solved. we know better. today, it is 73% of gross domestic product. it doubled in just five years. if we were to have an emergency today, we would have a lot less leeway. when you owe more than you make, your creditors get antsy. sooner or later they cut you off. the problem is they could cut costs off at exactly the wrong time. we have heard a lot of talk these days about how we need to pay our bills, but we need to make sure that we can pay our bills today and tomorrow. look, we know what is driving our debt. it is spending, especially

spending on the health care. cbo says most of the spending growth in the mail -- near future will be in medicare, medicaid, and the affordable care act. in the next 25 years, and expects spending in health care to grow by 75% or maybe as many as 83%. for all of this spending, what are we getting for it? the medicare trust fund will go broke in 10 years. that is after payrolls went up, after the health-care law made cuts to the program, and after the sequester made even more cuts. all of these adjustments, especially the health care law, were supposed to patch the hole, but instead we took on more water. tinkering isttle not enough. we need a whole new approach. the report says the debt is too high and the sooner we get to work the better. that is a really important point here. you look at the spending package that would have saved $4 trillion over 10 years, which is what the house budget would do. if we enacted the law, a force

of -- $4 trillion spending tactic, interest rates would be 1% in 2038, our economy would be 7% bigger, and our debt would be just over 31% of gdp. if we stayed on the current path, interest rates would rise, our debt would grow, and our economy would be 4% smaller in his 2038. what does that mean? read thousand $200 less per person in america at that time. about $3200 less per person. what would it take to keep our debt stabilized? if we took action now, it would cause roughly $145 billion a year. could cost $355 billion per year. we have one foot on each side of a crater, and everyday we rate, the gap grows larger. every day we wait, it gets harder to bridge that gap. washington's model is never do today what you can put off until

tomorrow, but tomorrow is a whole lot closer than we think. we know what the answer is. we know that with real reforms we cannot only paid on the debt, we can help grow the economy and put people back to work. it is not a matter of ability. it is a matter of will. and with that, i would like to recognize the ranking member for his opening remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank you, dr. thatdorf, for this report was the picture out into the clearly5 and demonstrates on our current trajectory we are on an unsustainable path with respect to the dead. it indicates that way to move forward on to from -- two fronts. russ, we have got to act now to get our economy into higher gear to put more americans back to work, and there are a number of steps we need to do that, but an earlier cbo study and letter also indicated that one we could do that is to replace the

sequester that is in place right now. which you indicated earlier would cost us hundreds of between now jobs and this time next year. that is a self-inflicted wound. that is a wound that this country cannot afford. more people could be put to work if we take care of that issue. democrats in the house have now tried eight times simply to get a vote on a plan to replace the sequester here it this congress -- sequester. this congress -- we have not seen a single plan put forward by republican colleagues to do that. so let's work together to work in a way that it changes the deficit more without the self- inflicted wound of hundreds of thousands fewer jobs. we can do that now. we also should act now to put in place a plan to address the long-term this the challenge your it in my view -- challenge. in my view, we should adopt the frameworks recommended by every

bipartisan group that has looked at this issue in recent times. not adopt every particular recommendation, but their overall framework in terms of making cuts, but also cuts to tax breaks for very wealthy individuals and special interest ts. the house democratic budget, all the budgets take that kind of balanced approach. we had hoped we would be able to go to a budget conference to try to resolve some of the differences between the house republican budget and our budget. you dealhe deaway with the longer-term challenge. we have tried time and again anyave conferees appointed, speaker refused to allow us to go to conference to reach a compromise and negotiate these issues. so let's move forward. unfortunately, right now in the house, we are focused on something very different than solving this long-term challenge. we have got before us a proposal

that would shut down the government if we don't shut down the affordable care act. the affordable care act, which andlready providing help health protections to millions of americans and will provide millions more with access to affordable care in the days ahead -- in the days to come. right now, the position of our republican colleagues unfortunately is we will shut down the government if we do not a policy goal of shutting down the affordable care act. what is march troubling is that they will -- more troubling is that they will double down. whether or not this country pays its bills on time. if they are going to say that we are not going to pay our bills on time in the u.s. unless we shut down the affordable care act for one year. that is irresponsible and reckless given the impact that not paying our bills would have on the economy. finally, mr. chairman, i just have to point out an incredible

irony. the congressional budget office has pointed out that the affordable care act will actually reduce the budget over the next 10 years and even more over the next 20 years. so to tie the defunding of the affordable care act to the debt we are is to say well, going to attach something that to aincrease the debt provision on the debt ceiling, and this was recognized by our republican colleagues in their budget. i think many people forgotten that if you look at the republican budget, it only allen's is in 10 years because they kept major parts of the affordable care act. they have the same level of revenues of the affordable care act in their budget. you do not take my word for it. here's a quote from the heritage foundation -- perhaps the against sure, the obvious house republicans budget is a gives a tax increase is associated with

obamacare. in fact, the budget would not be in balance in 10 years if not for the medicare savings of the affordable care act and the fact that you have the same amount of revenues. very is saying two different things at once, to say you will balance your budget and you are going to get rid of obama care when you rely on obamacare to balance your budget. realt's focus on the issues here, mr. chairman, and the issues in this report, and i appreciate the time again. welcome. >> clearly we see things differently. [laughter] mr. elmendorf, the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman, congressman van hollen. i am pleased to be back with you again today. cbo's long-ine of term budget outlook is the same as it was last year. the federal budget is on a course that cannot be sustained indefinitely. our extended baseline, which

largely follows current law, we ebt held byederal do the public would rise from 73% of gdp today to 100% of gdp in 25 years. even without accounting for the harmful effects of rising debt. the deficit has struck dramatically in the past few 10% of gdp inarly 2009 2 about 4% this year. under current law, the deficit will decline further in the next .ew years to about 2% of gdp after that respite, we predicted deficits will grow again. federal spending will be pushed up by rising interest payments on the federal debt and by growing cost for social security and the major health care problem -- programs. medicare, medicaid, and subsidies provided. interest payments on the debt would rise as interest rates rebound in their current

unusually low levels. in particular with debt so large , the increase in interest rates that we expect would have a very large effect on interest payments by the federal government. projected spending for social security increases relative to gdp or the because of the retirement of the baby boom generation, which would include the number of people eligible for social security by more than one third during the next 10 years alone. for the major health care programs would increase for three reasons, first because of retirement because of baby boomers, second because of rising health-care costs per person, and third because of the expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance. meanwhile, projected federal spending for all other programs put together the client sharply relative to gdp in our descended race line. this category of all other spending has averaged about 11% of gdp during the past 40 years. it is currently about 10% of

gdp, although below the 40-year average. about 70% of gdp by the end of the decade in 2038. by 2020, under current law, federal spending apart from acial security would be smaller percentage of gdp than any time since the 1930's. ons, the upward pressure federal spending relative to the size of the economy does not come from general growth of the size of the government but instead from growth of just a handful of large programs. social security, medicare, and medicaid him and from rising interest cost of the federal debt. federal revenues would also increase over time under current law, but more gradually than federal spending. .5% gdp. of it will rise to 18.5% by 2023 and nearly 20% in 2038.

the gap between federal spending and revenues would widen steadily after 2015. by 2038, the deficit would be 6.5% gdp. federal debt held by the public will be 100% of gdp, even before we account for the economic effects of the increase in debt. that will be more than any year except in 1845 and 1946. with such large deficits, debt would be growing faster than gdp. a path that could not be sustained indefinitely. in our report, we separately project of the economic consequences of the policies underlie the defendant -- underlying the baseline would reduce the nation's output and raise interest rates relative to what they would otherwise be in the long run, which in turn would lead to wider budget deficits. including debt under the baseline. large relative

to our annual output where any long-term would reduce output and income relative to what they would be of debt were closer to assist oracle average percentage of gdp. debt so large it would require higher interest rates -- increase the risk of a fiscal crisis. in addition, our report shows the effect of some alternate sets of fiscal policies, some and would reduce larger smaller deficits under current law. is substantial. our analysis shows under a wide range of possible assumptions about some key factors the budget is on an unsustainable path. as lawmakers consider changes in policies that would put the federal budget on a more sustainable course, you will face choices about the magnitude of deficit reduction, the policies to use in reducing deficits, and timing of deficit reduction. economic analysis does not say what the optimal amount of federal debt is, nor what the

revenuesunt of -- no are. from its current percent of gdp would require substantial changes to tax policies, spending policies, or both. if you want to bring debt down to 31% of gdp in 20 30th, a little below the 40-year enacte, you would need to a combination of increases in revenues and cuts in spending relative to current law totaling about $4 trillion in the coming decade. deciding how quickly to reduce the deficit, you faced difficult trade-offs. waiting to cut federal spending lead toase taxes will greater regulation of debt and increase the size needed to achieve any chosen debt target. however, implementing spending cuts or tax increases quickly would weaken the economic expansion. the negative short-term effects of deficit reduction on output

and employment would be especially large now with output so far below its potential or maximum sustainable level. holding interest rates buried close to zero and could not hold them further to offset the changes. thank you very much. i'm happy to answer your questions. >> let me start on the big picture here. we have to solve the problem. revenues are projected to grow to 19.5% of gdp, far higher than our average that we have been at , so the revenues are rising, but spending is taking off at an unsustainable trajectory, correct? >> the combination of the revenue patent spending path is not sustainable, whether you choose to adjust one line or the other is up to you. >> what i find interesting in your report is the main driver of these outlays that are going up so fast are the health care programs, particularly the new one, the affordable care act, in

the first 10 years. that is a great contributor. box 1.1 is shadow interesting, you break it down between aging, excess cost growth, and medicare expansion exchange subsidies. so it is not just the fact that baby boomers are retiring. that healthhe fact inflation is getting out of control. it is running faster than everything else. when you had more programs that that in liesose, our biggest driver of debt, correct? >> the one mm and i would make his health spending has outpaced gdp growth for some time, as you know. it has been slower relative to gdp recently, but still growing relative to gdp, and that is -- >> or if i'm really interesting in this report is when you add economic analysis to it, you are basically saying if we get a ,iscal package in place now that means we will have lower interest rates which will help

the economy, which will grow gdp, which will lower our debt, so that his economic stimulus using terms of my friends use him a bigger debt package, lower interest rates, faster growth, lower debt burden, then lower marginal income tax rates. i find it a very interesting aspect of your analysis. if we keep high marginal tax rates, that will slow down our economy. we will not hit as much of a potential. our income taxr rates, that will accelerate economic growth. i will help grow gdp and it was a smaller debt burden in the future. >> i think that is right, mr. chairman. the one thing i would add is that putting a package in place that gives people confidence that future deficits can be smaller can hold on interest rates today and boost the economy. that is slightly different than what i made my opening marks about implementing the tax increases or spending cuts

today, not part alone would slow the economy. >> you're basically making a timing point. >> yes. >> from a keynesian perspective, doing something that is a shock now, a big spending cut that is immediate or a big tax increase ort is immediate would harm put our base in the wrong direction. >> yes. >> but a long-term debt , there are other factors, but health care programs, and if we have tax reform that lowers our marginal tax breaks, that will help us in a couple of great ways. it will help us in lower interest rates, which grows the economy, and lower tax rates would help grow the economy, which means we can get that thing under control even with the retirement of the baby boom population. >> yes, that is right. >> that is the point we are trying to make here. this is where we want to go. fightason this debt limit is coming is because when we

have had great fiscal bipartisan agreements in the past, whether with democratsh in the senate, whether was thesech and clinton, things were part of debt limit agreements. they have always been the force got usions that agreements. what we're getting here is that if we put together a package now before the federal reserve normalizes, before interest rates start going, we will put ourselves in its a nation in a very good position. this moment, if we just kick the can because we keep fighting each other, then we will not get this opportunity, the federal reserve will start tapering, we all know that -- it is not and if, it is a win. -- when. interest rates will go up, and shame on us because the whole we

have to dig ourselves out of been is deeper. he is already giving us number. numbers. this is not a republican- democrat thing. we have to do something about this. and what we're seeing here, is the health care rogue runs are the armory drivers of our debt. this is white -- health care programs are the primary drivers of our debt. this is why we are focused on health care programs and tax reforms. if we keep high marginal tax rates, we heard businesses, we slowed on the economy from hitting its potential. if we lower our marginal tax rates, we have more economic investment. we have more entrepreneurship. small businesses can compete. marginal taxtive rate as of january now is 44.6%. eight out of 10 businesses in america -- they do not follow

taxes as corporations. they file their taxes as people. c's, so proprietorships, partnerships, pass-throughs. the international average tax rate on business is 25%. most other industrial nations do not text themselves like we do ours. they do not have a pass-through regime like we do. they have business tax rates. and they are on average 25%. 35%,orporate is 25 -- is and it is for 20% of our businesses. the other 80% go as high as 45% in tax breaks. we are really hurting ourselves with these high tax rates. what we are getting here is if we lower our tax -- and believe me, there is a way to do this without losing revenue. lower our tax rates, we get faster economic growth. if we take advantage of the moment we are in, the low interest moment we are in, which will not last that much longer, get a fiscal consolidation package on a spending and

entitlement reform, we will do our country a big favor. we will do our children a big favor because we will have deficit reduction and growth at a time when make the most difference. if we do not take advantage of this moment, this is why we are focused on the debt limit and these issues, then shame on us because the whole we have to dig ourselves out of will be that much deeper. i will reserve the balance of my time. mr. van halen. -- mr. van hollen. chairman.mr. the whole purpose of the budget law, which establishes a process for the house and senate to pass budget and a go to conference, is to try and work out these big issues on the budget deficit, not just for this year, but for future years. the law requires the conference committee between the house and senate report by april 15. yet our republican colleagues have prevented us from going to conference.

instead gone for a strategy where they drive this country right up against the debt limit, create huge uncertainty, and in that context is trying to make huge demands. if you read the papers today, they say ok, the u.s. will pay its bills, but only if you adopt the entire house republican agenda -- anti-environment a lot, get rid of the affordable care act for a year. that is irresponsible. the responsible way to do it is the way the law prescribes, and unfortunately, mr. chairman, the speaker absolutely refuse to go to conference so we could be working on the issues were a number of years. here is where we agree -- it is about math. every bipartisan group that has looked at our long-term deficit challenge has said you have got to look at both sides of the budget equation. yes, of course, you have to look at the spending side and deal with the long care health pieces. by the way, mr. chairman, you

didn't include in your budget -- you did include in your budget the medicare savings without the diminishing quality after your demagoguel candidate against those. but you recognized they were important to help reduce the deficit. in fact, the republican budget would not balance in 10 years without the. so we understand we have to have a savings on the health care size -- site. we also recommend with the poem that tells you, the other side of the equation needs to be looked at as well. revenue. out thendorf, you point facts, which is that if we keep running high deficits and debt as the economy improves, that will crowd out private, right? >> yes. >> and that will increase interest rates and slow down economic growth, right? and you said in the next 10-year period, we reduced the projected deficit by $2 trillion, then in a debt toould have

gdp ratio where we are today, right? >> yes. thatu have been clear you achieve that $2 trillion deficit reduction through cuts or through revenue or through a combination. >> yes, congressman. >> so if you want to eliminate that drag on economic growth, the key point in your report is that we have to reduce the deficit. >> yes. >> it is up to policy makers to x, and weat mi totally agree, mr. chairman, that we need to, just as the cbo had said. but we need to have a balanced approach because if you do it by only cutting on the health care site, you are going to be asking medicare beneficiaries, whose $23,000, and is for many of them who get half of that income from social security, that 23 thousand dollars, you're going to be asking them to take a big hit when you're not asking people who are earning $1 million. to eliminate some of their deductions.

you're not going to ask big oil companies to get rid of their special interest tax breaks, which is why we have argued, just like every bipartisan commission, that you have to do a combination of things. that is simple math. you do something on the revenue side and you have to do something on the spending side. dr. elmendorf, as i look at your analysis here, and you look out to 2035, and you compare this yours projection to the previous projections, the biggest driver intro -- increased deficit is the fact that we change the tax loss of that less revenue will be coming. >> that is right. inthe reason the deficit 2035 is much higher under this report than in previous reports is because we change the tax law and less revenue will be coming in. so our point is the point i think the overwhelming majority of the american people support, which is to tackle this

challenge, you need to address both pieces of this going forward. >> can i ask a question about that ben? >> sure. >> are you suggesting we should raise taxes on middle income of taxpayers, which is what we prevented -- myactually, no, reclaiming time, our view is that your tax plan does exactly that because you say you're going to get the top rate down to 25%, you say you will do it in a revenue neutral manner, which means you have got to come up with $4 trillion, even while you are providing the folks of the top with a big tax cut, and the way you're going to have to make it up mathematically is to increase the burden on middle income folks. if it is not the case, we would love to see your tax point. it has been in the republican budget for three years now. let's see it. just like for the last three years to have been talking about the repeal and replace on health care. we have had 42 vote on repeal.

not a single house republican plan has been voted on to come up with a different system. this, mr. you elmendorf, we need to look at the long-term, but we should also get the economy moving more quickly. now, several months ago, we asked you at the cbo that if you were to get rid of the fiscal year 2013 sequester and the fiscal year 2014 sequester, how many jobs would be saved? toare obviously now not able take back fiscal year 2013, despite our efforts to try and replace that sequester him a so just for this coming fiscal ,ear, just for fiscal year 2014 if the sequester remains in place, what is your best estimate as to having fewer jobs we will have in this country this time next year? 100,000, 200,000?

congressssman, if the were to move discretionary funding back up to the original paths under the budget control act and turn off the sequestration for 2014, we think that would add about .5% to the level of gdp at the end of 2014, and it would add about 600,000 jobs at the end of 2014. resentt of branches, we brain just to show the uncertainty. the effects on gdp we think would be somewhere between .2% and .8% on gdp growth at the end of 2014, the midpoint of .5%. on full-time equivalent employment would be between 200,000 jobs and one million jobs. and again with the midpoint up hundred thousand full-time jobs. >> and just so i understand, your best estimate as to how many fewer jobs we will have in this country if we keep the sequester in place between now and this time next year is

600,000. >> that is right, congressman. >> and the last three months we have seen around 500,000 fewer jobs, so you are talking about keeping the sequester in place that wipes out more than the number of jobs that were created in the last three months. selfis an unnecessarily afflicted want. mr. chairman, again, i would ask that the majority in this house allow was a simple vote on our plan to replace the sequester to save over 600,000 jobs, to end the eating away at important investments whether it is in biosciences or infrastructure, which clearly is having a negative impact on the economy and on the country. you inendorf, let me ask my last minute here, if we were to actually not pay our bills, if the u.s. government were to

lapse on its full taken credit, could you discuss what the potential negative and caps -- index could be on the economy? >> conversely, defaulting on any obligation of the u.s. government would be a dangerous gamble. one thing everybody has been able to count on is that the u.s. government will be able to pay his bills on time. rhe benefit checks for olde americans will go out on time, the grants to state and local governments will be made when they are scheduled, that the bills that small and large businesses submit to the government will be paid on time, and that the principal and interest payments on the federal debt will be made on time. it is the confidence, the reliability of those payments, were cast into doubt, then the consequences for the audit, for

the u.s. economy, for the u.s. and local financial systems could be large, lasting, and very damaging. >> thank you, dr. almanor. i noticed that you said default on any obligation because some of our colleagues have this debt bill, we call it the pay china first bill, which says you do not have to pay troops in the field, you do not have to pay doctors on medicare, but you pay bondholders, including the government of china. what you are saying is to default on any obligation would send a very bad signal. >> yes, congressman. tois very hard for congress know exactly what would happen. it might seem like defaulting on some obligations would be different than defaulting on others, but we do not have a basis for really analyzing that because fortunately we have not had a lot of experience with the government defaulting. but given how much money the federal government owes, to stop paying what is owed is a very risky strategy. >> thank you. i will reclaim the balance of my remaining time.

this all inut perspective, and i am not trying to pick a fight here, i am just trying to clarify goals and intentions. if a minority would have been willing to agree to limiting their motions to instruct to two, which was the offer given in the senate, we could have gone to conference. nobody wanted that. >> i have never heard that offer until this moment. >> that is not the case. the point we are trying to make having endless motions to instruct would that have been good,o prevent legitimate, serious reforms from making it into that budget agreement. when we have actually gotten bipartisan budget agreements in this country, especially in of divided government,

it is usually accompanied the debt limit. fresh one a report, a from cbo, which by the way says that there are better medicare reform second lower beneficiary cost and government cost, that is a pretty interesting report. i wonder if anybody has read that. it came out about a week ago. if we lower our marginal tax rates, it is good for growth and good for debt reduction. so the problem is -- can people agree that it is not just rich guys we are hitting, it is a successful small businesses who are the job creators that help grow the economy that is getting caught up in this, and lowering those tax rates is good for jobs, investment, the debt, and if we get fiscal consolidation, meaning entitlement reforms, as the drivers of our debt, health- care programs, that's, too, will help us get our debt under control, grow our economy, and

leave the next generation better a off. the window of opportunity is narrowing because interest rates will not be where they are for much longer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome back to the committee. i think if one is looking in this country and watching on c- span today, they are scratching their head and trying to figure why there is some agreement at the ground level that there is a debt, but why we can't come to any more agreement than that, and i really am surprised at the ranking member and his conversation about the affordable care act and the focus on a, and it is appropriate because it is a focus of the american people. calamity have caused because of obama care, full-time workers being shoved into part- time status, d story and family -- d straying families. families.ing

hundreds of thousands of families with members of their family being tossed off because of the affordable care act, not because of anything they desire as families. huge numbers of doctors. as a physician, i can tell you, huge numbers of doctors who are no longer able to participate in the program. i would urge my colleagues to listen to their constituents. also surprised by the amnesia that i seem to hear from the other side. 's is the president sequester. we try to pass a piece of legislation that would more appropriately prioritize the spending, but the administration was not willing to take that. and then the full faith and credit that we passed with this continuing resolution last week. i do want to turn for your report because i find it very fascinating. the long-term budget outlook. this is the picture that you all chose to demonstrate the challenge that we have, and the outgoing line there is the increasing debt over a relatively short period of time

that all of us can in our lifetime up here. would you call that a large and growing debt? >> absolutely. you state theee, harmful effects of a large and growing debt, and i want to draw our attention to one sentence there. at some point, investors with a large and growing debts begin to doubt the government's willingness or ability to pay u.s. debt obligations. that is a calamitous event when that occurs. >> yes, cumbersome, it would be. >> if we on this side, on both sides of the aisle, are trying to look at the tea leaves and see how close we are to that point, are there things we can look at as indicators? >> there is no way to predict when the country would reach a fiscal crisis because those rare, have not occurred in this country, and depend not just on particular amounts of debt, but on peoples

confidence in the ability of government to manage its finances. we do not know when we will reach that point in this country. one indicator would be rising interest rates. on the other hand, when countries encounter fiscal crises, they have also been borrowing a fairly low interest rates for a long time. confidence ine the path they are on. and then rates can rise sharply with little warning. this may not have the leading indicators that one would hope for. >> mr. chairman would like to discuss with you, we're still in that window that we can turn things around and move in the right direction. >> absolutely. >> at some point, the window closes. >> yes, it went. >> i would like to shift to page 88 that house about the long-run effects of fiscal policies with smaller deficits, and a couple of graphs. you stated in your comments that increasing debt decreases income. >> yes. >> the graph on the bottom here demonstrates an alternative

scenario where there is $4 trillion in the deficit action over a 10-year period of time 30 of the dead-end of said decreasing. income increasing. -- of time. and you have the debt and deficit increasing. -- decreasing and income increasing. government, as the borrows more money, it is producing be funds available to private investors and thus reducing the amount of capital investment we do. together with education and other things make workers more productive and lead to higher incomes. if there is less investment, less productivity growth, let's increase in wages and incomes over time. >> the budget that house republicans adopted had a debord -- had a debt reduction over a 10-year period of time of about $4.5 trillion. path, the to get on a

house republican budget is an example of one. >> yes, it is an example of one. >> thank you, i yield back. young. >> thank you, mr. chairman, dr. elmendorf. over the last couple of months, i have talked to a large number of medical researchers both in my district and elsewhere who have reached near panic i guess over the effects of sequester on the projects that they have been working on, and very concerned about the long-term effects of sequestration on their work. they havee time, given us encouraging news. virtually every researcher i have talked to believes that within the next 10 years, we will have a disruptive change in the medical field, one or more. by disruptive change, i mean curing cancer, queuing -- curing

diabetes, something of major consequences to the medical field. subsequently to the burden of health care costs in the country. has cbo given any thoughts or attention as to what curing diabetes -- i think the estimates are $150 billion a year spent system what on that. what that kind of a disruptive change would mean on projections of long-term health care costs for the taxpayer? >> basic long-term projections do not try to guess what particular source the changes might occur in health care delivery. we have gradual slowing of this extra cost growth over time in response to rising pressures of cost your we don't try to figure out -- of cost. we do not try to figure out the path of diseases or treatments for them. whether curing a disease would help the federal budget or not it's actually not very clear. it would be great for people's lives, obviously, but the effect on the budget are complicated.

when we look at the effects of raising a cigarette tax in the report that we did, that would make people healthier, fewer people would smoke, they could live longer, but the federal budget has some odd clusters. less spending, people live longer, they collect social security benefits for longer. that is for the good of society, but it may not be good for the federal budget. for individual diseases and individual new approaches that have different sorts of effects on the federal budget. not worked on those except the increase in cigarette tax. >> you talk about the fact that $4 trillion in reduction of either spending -- a commendation of spending and increase revenues would bring the debt as a percentage of gdp to below historical ranges. we're talking basically about $400 billion a year yucc? >> yes, that is right.

>> what would be the impact of the economy is taking $400 million out of the economy, say any health-care arena? $400 billion a year. >> if one takes it out of the economy right away, especially under these economic circumstances, it would weaken the economy, it would reduce the number of jobs. that is why many people who have constructed different policies reducing deficits have focused on facing in those policies over time. there are pros and cons of how quickly one faces and policies. a general agreement that making decisions as soon as good. the sooner you make decisions, the more time you give people to plan and adjust. quite the chairman of the committee talked about -- >> the chairman of the committee talked about cutting marginal tax rates creates wealth and reduces the deficit and so forth. didn't we tried that in 2001, 2003?

>> congressman, i think the economic statement, i should say carefully, reducing marginal tax rates while continuing the same level of total revenue so that the deficits would not be affected would be good for the economy. if one lowers tax rates and loses revenues through that rises, then the effects of the economy depends on the magnitude involved because the larger deficits are bad for the economy, lower taxes are good for the economy. >> we did lower tax rates in 2001 and 2003, and we do not see a reduction in the deficit over the ensuing years? economistswhen studied the effects of change in tax rates, so many things go on in the economy and the budget that we draw a broader set of evidence. >> i yield the last 25 seconds. i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. garrett. >> thank you for coming in. as dr. price was saying, viewers

who watch this probably can see the difference of opinion as to whether we are in a financial difficulty or not. the issue of health care, we see the discrepancy. well, in thet as report, i believe i read that looking at medicare part a would fall from $229 billion at the end of fiscal year 2012 to $31 billion at the end of fiscal year 2023. >> yes. >> you going to say that the cbo concludes in the long-term under thelook is extended baseline, the trust fund would be exhausted just beyond the humming decade. >> yes. >> i guess my constituents at home, i do not know whether they read this report or not, what -- >> they do, congressman.

>> there are a lot of pictures and every thing. it is a little dry. but they do get your message and they do get your numbers, and that is why they are asking us what are we doing to try to fix this. you used the word exhausted. what they're asking me is -- what are we going to do to prevent bankruptcy? could you tell us or tell them what will be the practical for seniors in my district and across the country as well if we get to that point where part a is exhausted or bankrupt, if you will you g? >> the payments for hospital through medicare comes out of the hospital insurance trust fund. if the trust fund were exhausted, then the amount could be paid for treating regular -- medicare if this year is would be less than what would be needed to meet all of the bills. >> what is that mean to a senior

home today? not letr, congress has the social security trust fund or medicare run out of money. but if that happened, hospitals would not get the payments written down in current law. i do not know which hospitals would get paid or which would not or for which patients. there is no way to know. >> bottom line -- doctors would not get paid, hospitals potentially would not get paid, -- >> hospitals would not get the full payment. that is right, congressman. federal health care spending would grow considerably in 2014 unless changes are made. projections growth for health care spending as a result of the affordable care act, as a percent of gdp as well? told, the federal spending on these major health

care programs is about 4.5% of gdp now, we think it will be 8% to 2038. over the 25 years, there are substantial portions increasing by the aging population that are the coverage expansions of the affordable care act. goso spending is going to up, services will go down, and an article in the "wall street journal" recently about the price of the premiums that people will be paying in my home state of new jersey, in new jersey, premiums could increase from $162 a month to $219 a month. around 35%, roughly, increase in premiums under the affordable care act if we just continue on. i know you guys they look like in 2009 is for the increase of premiums. have you ever looked at what premiums will be increasing under the affordable care act if the status quo's continued? >> you're right, and the fall of 2009, we announce what a version of affordable care act and play at the time would do to

premiums. we have not updated accurate we are of course following the news about premiums, and we will factor them into into our next projection. twice you have not read on it, but do you still expect the affordable care act what increase premiums for americans in the nongroup market? >> yes. we thought there were a number of factors that would increase premiums, the most important of which would that's insurance policies would be required to cover a larger share of the total services. that means premiums would be higher, but out-of-pocket would be lower. like that is part of the affordable care act. >> because of the affordable care act, same standards for what share of the affordable -- has to be covered. the increase in out-of-pocket costs will be offsetting for the average beneficiary. some would they do more, someone paid less. there are other reasons camusso google appeared and there are subsidies to the premiums you are referring to. >> my time is up.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. chairmanyou are the here. i would rather have chris, of course, but i do not want to believe, i really do not want to that this of session with the debt, and no one in this room denies, just looking at the pictures, that we have a debt and we need to address it. the question is -- how do we address it? if folks look back to 2009 and a cd great it said that exist in 2009, no business was investing, no capital, no consumers were buying, so the government has to do something, as they have done 25 times in the 20th century whenever we had a recession or a depression. i like to put things in context.

counting on you. issue will be a stopping horse for a continued ideological struggle, to slash the social safety net, and pad the pockets of other people. i am counting on it. i cannot put it any clearer than that. we are talking about this budget, -- >> can i ask you, do you honestly think that is what we are try to do yo? wi-fi that i am counting on you. >> do you honestly think that is what we are trying to do yo? >> yes, i think that is one of the reasons we have it today. i do not think that is your motivation, who am i to question your motivation? but i am counting on appeared on page 103, the very large change

between this year and last year, correct me if i'm wrong, and the standsed federal debt primarily from changes in tax law that have sharply reduced future revenues. >> yes, congressman. >> that is on page 103. in this report, the largest reason for the deficit would be bigger than the previous isimate that we have had that the taxi we had at the beginning of this year -- talk .bout amnesia that is very interesting to examine. how much bigger, mr. elmendorf, with the deficit have been if we had extended the tax cuts of everyone, as for

my friend suggested on the other side? deficit bigger with the -- since they are so concerned about this deficit -- how much bigger would it be? >> it would be substantially larger, congressman, but i do not have a numerical estimate at hand. i am sorry. >> substantially larger? >> yesterday rex and then -- yes. >> and then where do we go? in just one year, the projections of the future growth in our health care system went down by almost 10%. i read parts of this report. that is what you say. -- yes,ought down carter said. >> and all the other years before that, since 1995 going back to 1990, those costs went up. maybe just happened by chance. maybe we woke up one morning and we won't increase

insurance premiums as much as we did last year. you know that is not how it happened, and i know. knowsody in this room that is how it happened. there is much more to do, but this is a very significant a compliment because so much of this deficit is dependent upon, as the chairman rightfully point out, health- care costs. ., onerpose of the a.c.a of its purposes, was to bring down the health-care cost. dr. elmendorf, on page 58 of your report, you make some projections regarding federal noninterest spending, including discretionary spending. which we know is coming down. the president lowered it by half. the reason why it was lowered by

half, someone said this morning, how can he say lowered it by half when you increase as a much in 2009 -- put in context. >> thank you. mr. mcclintock. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. elmendorf, we keep hearing the proposition that in order to reduce the deficit, we either have to raise taxes or cut spending. as if taxes and deficits are opposites. seems to me they are the same side -- two sides to the same taxes,hat deficits are they are just future taxes. the only question between a -- the only difference between a deficit and a taxes the timing of the tax. >> i think deficits could be -- did you let -- the accumulation in debt could be addressed by a tax increase or spending cut later. what a large deficit us --

>> but you are applying future taxes. taxes and deficits are the only two possible ways to pay for spending. >> yes, congressman, that is right. >> it seems to me then that the critical issue before us is the level of spending. the level of spending has the combined level of current and future taxes, not the other way around. affect futureill spending as well, but i take your point that the only way to pay for spending is to collect revenue or to borrow the money. >> a recent article in the "wall street journal" noted that the european experience is that those nations that have increases relative to gdp overall had how are your -- had higher economic growth than those that are not. is that your observation? >> it isn't only time period. -- it depends on the time period.

restraint fiscal policy -- >> countries that have had lower spending -- >> what the "wall street journal" article was referring to was levels of spending relative to gdp, and they found a remarkable correlation between restraint and increases in spending relative to gdp and economic growth. congressman, the way congress will look at that question is to look at the effects of the tax code of the country is having a on people. their point is, the spending seems to be directly correlated to the growth. the greater restraint in spending, the greater overall economic growth these nations have had. you mentioned timing. just looking at the recent history of this country, truman, kennedy, reagan, clinton all cut

spending relative to gdp. hoover, johnson, bush all increase relative to gdp. seem to do better under the former policies than the latter. >> president hoover, for example, not to defend his economic policies, spending rose of a share of gdp because of what happened to the economy, not originally a budget -- >> he increased spending 60% during his four years in office. rather breathtaking. >> the ratio spending to gdp depends on explicit decisions about spending -- >> but even factoring that out, in nominal terms, 60% increase in federal spending in four years is rather breathtaking. it is not seem to jump start the economy. economists think that expansionary fiscal policy in the depression is good for the economy during the depression. most economists make lower taxes and higher spending were good

for the army during the downturn. >> i understand that. is the more we invest in our mistakes, the less willing we are to to admit the. responsento address a -- let me go on address a response the made to the ranking member. did i understand you correctly to say you see no decision between credit markets between the government the faulting on debt to the public and delaying the public and delaying payment of routine obligations? >> know, that is not what i said, congressman, i said the faulting of any obligation of the u.s. government is a dangerous gamble. >> you believe the credit market see a distinction between defaulting on the actual debt owed to the public and delaying payments of routine obligations. >> i said, congressman, it might be the nso system or the economy would respond differently to different obligations, but we do not have a basis for making analytic protections --

-- studentr subject loans. $1 trillion of debt owed to the federal government, increasing default rates, the amount that we are putting in seems to be driving a huge increase in tuition. wishing is up four times the rate of inflation over the past decade. are we heading toward a student loan default bubble? >> i have not studied that, congressman. >> thank you very much. good morning and thank you for being here and thank you for all the work that went into the 2013 long-term budget outlook. very concerned with the economic damage being caused by the sequester. previously responded to ranking member van hollen. did you say if we keep the sequester in place that it